On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:44:15AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> I really should have paid more attention before ACKing some of the >> patches. :) Here is the problem introduced by this one: >> >> > --- >> > data/oses/ubuntu.xml | 731 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> > 1 files changed, 711 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/data/oses/ubuntu.xml b/data/oses/ubuntu.xml >> > index 78239f6..fb331a3 100644 >> > --- a/data/oses/ubuntu.xml >> > +++ b/data/oses/ubuntu.xml >> > @@ -6,6 +6,35 @@ >> > <version>4.10</version> >> > <vendor>Canonical</vendor> >> > <family>Linux</family> >> > + >> > + <media arch="i386"> >> > + <url>http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/warty/warty-release-install-i386.iso</url> >> > + <iso> >> > + <volume-id>Ubuntu 4.10 i386</volume-id> >> > + <system-id>LINUX</system-id> >> > + </iso> >> > + <kernel>casper/vmlinuz</kernel> >> > + <initrd>casper/initrd.img</initrd> >> > + </media> >> .. >> > + >> > + <media arch="i386" live="true" installer="false"> >> > + <url>http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/warty/warty-release-live-i386.iso</url> >> > + <iso> >> > + <volume-id>Ubuntu 4.10 i386</volume-id> >> > + <system-id>LINUX</system-id> >> > + </iso> >> > + <kernel>casper/vmlinuz</kernel> >> > + <initrd>casper/initrd.img</initrd> >> > + </media> >> >> With volume and system ID being identical for both medias, only the >> first media will be matched against both types of medias. Same goes >> for other medias you added in this patch. Wonder what could be a >> solution here though. Perhaps detection code should check if there is >> multiple matches and it there are, match basename of known URL against >> that of media's patch? > > Yep, the name is about the only difference between them - all the ISO > metadata is identical. The other thing I considered is to add an MD5 > checksum of the ISO file, which would trivially distinguish them, > but I fear that would make it too unique. That might be a very good idea actually (Christophe was meaning to do that any ways?) but calculation of md5 takes a very long time: $ time md5sum ~/ISOs/Fedora-16-x86_64-DVD.iso bb38ea1fe4b2fc69e7a6e15cf1c69c91 /home/zeenix/ISOs/Fedora-16-x86_64-DVD.iso real 0m23.348s user 0m9.276s sys 0m1.654s so I'll recommend to restrict it to first N bytes, where we could think/discuss the value of N but 1MiB should be good enough and takes very little time: $ time dd if=~/ISOs/Fedora-16-x86_64-DVD.iso bs=1M count=1 2> /dev/null |md5sum e25ea147176f24239d38a46f501bd25e - real 0m0.011s user 0m0.004s sys 0m0.008s Actually if we start using md5sum for detection, we can pretty much remove all other detection logic/extraction. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124
