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

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:05:36AM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>   Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> 
> > Hey,
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 01:00:38PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
> > >   Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 02:38:41PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  data/os/freebsd.org/freebsd-10.4.xml.in | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100644 data/os/freebsd.org/freebsd-10.4.xml.in
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/data/os/freebsd.org/freebsd-10.4.xml.in b/data/os/freebsd.org/freebsd-10.4.xml.in
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 0000000..5697b69
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/data/os/freebsd.org/freebsd-10.4.xml.in
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
> > > > > +<libosinfo version="0.0.1">
> > > > > +<!-- Licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 or later.
> > > > > +     See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ for a copy of the license text -->
> > > > > +  <os id="http://freebsd.org/freebsd/10.4">
> > > > > +    <short-id>freebsd10.4</short-id>
> > > > > +    <_name>FreeBSD 10.4</_name>
> > > > > +    <version>10.4</version>
> > > > > +    <_vendor>FreeBSD Project</_vendor>
> > > > > +    <family>freebsd</family>
> > > > > +    <distro>freebsd</distro>
> > > > > +    <upgrades id="http://freebsd.org/freebsd/10.3"/>
> > > > > +    <derives-from id="http://freebsd.org/freebsd/10.3"/>
> > > > 
> > > > There was some conversation on IRC regarding upgrades VS derives-from, I
> > > > don't think derives-from is needed here.
> > > 
> > > Could you please clarify when it's appropriate to use derives-from?
> > > 
> > > PS It looks like these are not pushed yet. Do you want me to send v2
> > > with derives-from dropped or you can amend that before pushing?
> > 
> > Yeah, did not push them on purpose waiting for your feedback :) I can
> > amend before pushing, sure. My understanding of derives-from is that
> > it's for special cases like ubuntu being forked off debian, or rhel
> > deriving from fedora, or centos from RHEL. It's not meant to describe
> > regular upgrades from one version to the next.
> > 
> > Christophe
> 
> This sounds reasonable to me. Should we also drop 'derives-from' from
> the previous releases' entries?
> 
> 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?

Usually we just end up having 'upgrades' in release-date order, and then
fixing up minor updates after the fact. eg when 10.4 comes out, switch
11.0 to be upgrades from 10.4 instead of 10.3



Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|