[Libosinfo] [osinfo-db][PATCH] opensuse, install-script: Skip second stage

[Christophe Fergeau]

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 04:19:54PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 02:55:18PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:00:22PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> >> >> > If they are public, what happens in libosinfo if we try to set a
> >> >> > non-existent parameter? In other word, should we consider this an
> >> >> > API/ABI break, or are we fine with dropping it?
> >> >>
> >> >> We're totally fine dropping it.
> >> >> If we try to set a non-existent parameter (or pattern) autoyast is
> >> >> smart enough to not break the installation because of that.
> >> >
> >> > My worry was in libosinfo API, what happens to code using libosinfo and
> >> > trying to set this config parameter? Is this going to cause problems? Or
> >> > will it just be ignored?
> >>
> >> I see. About this, we don't actually set this parameter never ever.
> >> It's been only internal so far.
> >
> > "we"? My question was more if hypothetical "unknown" libosinfo users
> > could try to use that, and get failures after it gets removed. I agree
> > it's very far fetched, I was just trying to assess the impact of this
> > removal ;)
> >
> 
> "We" :-)
> I meant, libosinfo doesn't even expose this option, never ever.

Ah ok, I was not fully sure if tihs was the case or not, thanks for
bearing with me. And sorry for spending time on something that did not
need discussing!

Christophe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libosinfo/attachments/20180531/d52c1bc7/attachment.sig>