[Libosinfo] [PATCH osinfo-db] freebsd: add FreeBSD 10.4 info

[Roman Bogorodskiy]

  Christophe Fergeau wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:05:36AM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
> > This sounds reasonable to me. Should we also drop 'derives-from' from
> > the previous releases' entries?
> 
> Hmm, git grep'ping, derives-from is used all over the place ;) One thing
> I don't know for sure is whether it should be used for major upgrades
> (RHEL 6 to RHEL 7, or Fedora 21 to 22).
> 
> > Also, thinking about it, I'm not sure about one thing regarding
> > 'upgrades': FreeBSD supports multiple major versions in parallel.
> > 
> > For example it could be this way:
> > 
> > 10.3 -> 10.4
> >  | 
> > 11.0 -> 11.1 -> ... -> 11.X
> > 
> > So 10.4 will become a dead end because there'll be no entries that
> > refer it in <upgrades> (e.g. 11.X will refer 11.(X-1)). What's the right
> > way to handle that?
> 
> I don't know how much it is documented that 11.0 upgrades 10.3 and not
> 10.4? Is it just this way because we added to the database first 10.3,
> then 11.0, and finally 10.4? Or are there stronger requirements?

Yeah, it's this way because 11.0 goes before 10.4.

> Most of the times, things are this way in the database because of the
> timing of additions, if 11.0 was added later than 10.4, 11.0 would be
> marked as upgrading 10.4 rather than 10.3.
> So it might make sense to update the 11.0 entry to refer to 10.4 if
> needed. However, I don't think a lot of things are looking into these
> upgrades/derives links. Maybe libosinfo follows them for device support(
> I always forget ;) And it probably does not matter too much to have dead
> ends.

Ok, so let it be as it is now.

Roman Bogorodskiy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libosinfo/attachments/20171019/eec57067/attachment.sig>