From zeeshanak at gnome.org Wed Oct 2 13:31:28 2013 From: zeeshanak at gnome.org (Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:31:28 +0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] post installation driver location for windows install script In-Reply-To: <1152689665.389860.1380551382102.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> References: <224907406.377188.1380550316984.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <1152689665.389860.1380551382102.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> Message-ID: Hi Dennis, Sorry for the late reply but I was AFK for last 2 days. On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > I am using libosinfo to generate autounattend.xml for installing Windows 2008 Server on a Nova instance. I would like to install both the storage and the network drivers during the pre-install phase. However, if the drivers are stored in different directories of a CD, the autounattend.xml requires two paths to be listed. This is not currently supported by libosinfo. I then attempted to add the network driver during the post-install phase. > > I added the post_install_drivers_disk and post_install_drivers_location to the InstallConfig, but the autounattend.xml generated from that config does not contain any information about post-install drivers. I only see settings for pre-install drivers. Am I supposed to generate a secondary script for post install or is this a bug? You are supposed to generate and install the scripts for the OS in the particular profile of your choice, not just the main script. In this particular case, you need the .cmd script that handles post-install drivers. Also if you want to keep your code generic, you should check if any script in a profile+OS, provides the capability of driver installation using the functions: osinfo_install_script_get_can_pre_install_drivers() osinfo_install_script_get_can_post_install_drivers() Oh and if your drivers are not signed, you also need: osinfo_install_script_get_pre_install_drivers_signing_req() osinfo_install_script_get_post_install_drivers_signing_req() Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 From zeeshanak at gnome.org Wed Oct 2 16:03:36 2013 From: zeeshanak at gnome.org (Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:03:36 +0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] gnome: Add info for gnome-continuous 3.12 In-Reply-To: <1380232229-18700-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> References: <1380232229-18700-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" > > gnome-continuous is continuous integration system so images produced by > it track the git master of all modules and now that GNOME 3.10 is out and > many projects have branched for 3.10 maintainance, these images are > already 3.12 (3.11 at the moment but thats splitting hair I guess). > --- So how about this patch? > data/oses/gnome.xml.in | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/data/oses/gnome.xml.in b/data/oses/gnome.xml.in > index 20b4b6a..7879d7a 100644 > --- a/data/oses/gnome.xml.in > +++ b/data/oses/gnome.xml.in > @@ -89,4 +89,24 @@ > > > > + > + gnome-continuous-3.12 > + <_name>GNOME 3.12 > + 3.12 > + <_vendor>GNOME Project > + linux > + gnome > + > + > + > + 2014-03-25 > + > + > + > + 2 > + 1073741824 > + > + > + > + > > -- > 1.8.3.1 > -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 From berrange at redhat.com Wed Oct 2 16:28:34 2013 From: berrange at redhat.com (Daniel P. Berrange) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:28:34 +0100 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] gnome: Add info for gnome-continuous 3.12 In-Reply-To: References: <1380232229-18700-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> Message-ID: <20131002162834.GF24276@redhat.com> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:03:36PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) > wrote: > > From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" > > > > gnome-continuous is continuous integration system so images produced by > > it track the git master of all modules and now that GNOME 3.10 is out and > > many projects have branched for 3.10 maintainance, these images are > > already 3.12 (3.11 at the moment but thats splitting hair I guess). > > --- > > So how about this patch? I have the same concerns about this that I do for the patch you proposed for Fedora rawhide. Namely that OS in libosinfo have some implied long term stability, but these are by definition moving targets. I understand your desire to include them though. Perhaps we should address this by adding a tag to the XML element indicating whether an OS is a formal release, or a snapshot ? That way apps can at least distinguish the two if they have a need to so, and we can declare that any OS database entry marked as a "snapshot" is liable to change arbitrarily over time. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| From zeeshanak at gnome.org Wed Oct 2 16:43:41 2013 From: zeeshanak at gnome.org (Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:43:41 +0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] gnome: Add info for gnome-continuous 3.12 In-Reply-To: <20131002162834.GF24276@redhat.com> References: <1380232229-18700-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> <20131002162834.GF24276@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:03:36PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) >> wrote: >> > From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" >> > >> > gnome-continuous is continuous integration system so images produced by >> > it track the git master of all modules and now that GNOME 3.10 is out and >> > many projects have branched for 3.10 maintainance, these images are >> > already 3.12 (3.11 at the moment but thats splitting hair I guess). >> > --- >> >> So how about this patch? > > I have the same concerns about this that I do for the patch you > proposed for Fedora rawhide. Namely that OS in libosinfo have > some implied long term stability, but these are by definition > moving targets. > > I understand your desire to include them though. > > Perhaps we should address this by adding a tag to the XML element > indicating whether an OS is a formal release, or a snapshot ? That > way apps can at least distinguish the two if they have a need to > so, and we can declare that any OS database entry marked as a > "snapshot" is liable to change arbitrarily over time. Sounds good to me, as long as we agree to add 'release-date' (if known) as I'll need that to map a specific image to a specific OS entry in the db in the app. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 From zeeshanak at gnome.org Thu Oct 3 01:14:38 2013 From: zeeshanak at gnome.org (Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 04:14:38 +0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] gnome: Add info for gnome-continuous 3.12 In-Reply-To: References: <1380232229-18700-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> <20131002162834.GF24276@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:03:36PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) >>> wrote: >>> > From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" >>> > >>> > gnome-continuous is continuous integration system so images produced by >>> > it track the git master of all modules and now that GNOME 3.10 is out and >>> > many projects have branched for 3.10 maintainance, these images are >>> > already 3.12 (3.11 at the moment but thats splitting hair I guess). >>> > --- >>> >>> So how about this patch? >> >> I have the same concerns about this that I do for the patch you >> proposed for Fedora rawhide. Namely that OS in libosinfo have >> some implied long term stability, but these are by definition >> moving targets. >> >> I understand your desire to include them though. >> >> Perhaps we should address this by adding a tag to the XML element >> indicating whether an OS is a formal release, or a snapshot ? That >> way apps can at least distinguish the two if they have a need to >> so, and we can declare that any OS database entry marked as a >> "snapshot" is liable to change arbitrarily over time. > > Sounds good to me, as long as we agree to add 'release-date' (if > known) as I'll need that to map a specific image to a specific OS > entry in the db in the app. Oh and talking of release date, isn't a release date in future already an indication that this OS entry is a snapshot? Especially if we point this out clearly in the docs? If we don't add a separate tag, we'll not end up with entries marked as snapshots that are released already in case we forget to update them (which I'm sure we will). -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 From berrange at redhat.com Thu Oct 3 09:02:56 2013 From: berrange at redhat.com (Daniel P. Berrange) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:02:56 +0100 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] gnome: Add info for gnome-continuous 3.12 In-Reply-To: References: <1380232229-18700-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> <20131002162834.GF24276@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20131003090256.GA21965@redhat.com> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 04:14:38AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:03:36PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) > >>> wrote: > >>> > From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" > >>> > > >>> > gnome-continuous is continuous integration system so images produced by > >>> > it track the git master of all modules and now that GNOME 3.10 is out and > >>> > many projects have branched for 3.10 maintainance, these images are > >>> > already 3.12 (3.11 at the moment but thats splitting hair I guess). > >>> > --- > >>> > >>> So how about this patch? > >> > >> I have the same concerns about this that I do for the patch you > >> proposed for Fedora rawhide. Namely that OS in libosinfo have > >> some implied long term stability, but these are by definition > >> moving targets. > >> > >> I understand your desire to include them though. > >> > >> Perhaps we should address this by adding a tag to the XML element > >> indicating whether an OS is a formal release, or a snapshot ? That > >> way apps can at least distinguish the two if they have a need to > >> so, and we can declare that any OS database entry marked as a > >> "snapshot" is liable to change arbitrarily over time. > > > > Sounds good to me, as long as we agree to add 'release-date' (if > > known) as I'll need that to map a specific image to a specific OS > > entry in the db in the app. > > Oh and talking of release date, isn't a release date in future already > an indication that this OS entry is a snapshot? Especially if we point > this out clearly in the docs? If we don't add a separate tag, we'll > not end up with entries marked as snapshots that are released already > in case we forget to update them (which I'm sure we will). IMHO predicting future release dates is a fool's errand. Every project I know misses their predicted release dates on a non-negligible number of occasions. That's why I think it is better to list it as a "snapshot". I think it is actually a good thing that the libosinfo entry will remain tagged as "snapshot" release until manually updated, because this is also non-negligable liklihood we'll need to update URLs and other metadata. eg, all the fedora repo / ISO URLs change between Beta and GA, which will invalidate the pre-release XML. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| From zeeshanak at gnome.org Thu Oct 3 18:13:45 2013 From: zeeshanak at gnome.org (Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 21:13:45 +0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] gnome: Add info for gnome-continuous 3.12 In-Reply-To: <20131003090256.GA21965@redhat.com> References: <1380232229-18700-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> <20131002162834.GF24276@redhat.com> <20131003090256.GA21965@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 04:14:38AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:03:36PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" >> >>> > >> >>> > gnome-continuous is continuous integration system so images produced by >> >>> > it track the git master of all modules and now that GNOME 3.10 is out and >> >>> > many projects have branched for 3.10 maintainance, these images are >> >>> > already 3.12 (3.11 at the moment but thats splitting hair I guess). >> >>> > --- >> >>> >> >>> So how about this patch? >> >> >> >> I have the same concerns about this that I do for the patch you >> >> proposed for Fedora rawhide. Namely that OS in libosinfo have >> >> some implied long term stability, but these are by definition >> >> moving targets. >> >> >> >> I understand your desire to include them though. >> >> >> >> Perhaps we should address this by adding a tag to the XML element >> >> indicating whether an OS is a formal release, or a snapshot ? That >> >> way apps can at least distinguish the two if they have a need to >> >> so, and we can declare that any OS database entry marked as a >> >> "snapshot" is liable to change arbitrarily over time. >> > >> > Sounds good to me, as long as we agree to add 'release-date' (if >> > known) as I'll need that to map a specific image to a specific OS >> > entry in the db in the app. >> >> Oh and talking of release date, isn't a release date in future already >> an indication that this OS entry is a snapshot? Especially if we point >> this out clearly in the docs? If we don't add a separate tag, we'll >> not end up with entries marked as snapshots that are released already >> in case we forget to update them (which I'm sure we will). > > IMHO predicting future release dates is a fool's errand. Every project > I know misses their predicted release dates on a non-negligible number of > occasions. That's why I think it is better to list it as a "snapshot". > I think it is actually a good thing that the libosinfo entry will remain > tagged as "snapshot" release until manually updated, because this is > also non-negligable liklihood we'll need to update URLs and other > metadata. eg, all the fedora repo / ISO URLs change between Beta and > GA, which will invalidate the pre-release XML. Hm.. good points although they seem to apply more to Fedora (and other) snapshots and less to gnome-continuous ones. The latter will unlikely be needing update once a particular GNOME release is out. However I don't think its a very bad idea to handle both the same way so I'll send patch(es) to add this 'snapshot' tag and update these 'future releases' patches to use that. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 From zeeshanak at gnome.org Thu Oct 3 22:02:38 2013 From: zeeshanak at gnome.org (Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 01:02:38 +0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] Future OSes/snapshots Message-ID: <1380837761-5030-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> These patches add a new tag to OS entries that specifies if OS in question is a yet-to-be-released/snapshot version and adds such entries for Fedora and GNOME. From zeeshanak at gnome.org Thu Oct 3 22:02:39 2013 From: zeeshanak at gnome.org (Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 01:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH 1/3] Add an optional 'snapshot' tag to OS entries In-Reply-To: <1380837761-5030-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> References: <1380837761-5030-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> Message-ID: <1380837761-5030-2-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" Applications can use this to determine if an OS is just a snapshot and not an actual released product yet. For example, gnome-continuous images for development snapshots of GNOME and pre-release and nightly build ISOs of Fedora etc. --- data/schemas/libosinfo.rng | 5 +++++ osinfo/libosinfo.syms | 1 + osinfo/osinfo_loader.c | 1 + osinfo/osinfo_os.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ osinfo/osinfo_os.h | 6 ++++-- 5 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng b/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng index 735ced0..1e572e2 100644 --- a/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng +++ b/data/schemas/libosinfo.rng @@ -481,6 +481,11 @@ + + + + + diff --git a/osinfo/libosinfo.syms b/osinfo/libosinfo.syms index ccd7c30..0537c58 100644 --- a/osinfo/libosinfo.syms +++ b/osinfo/libosinfo.syms @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ LIBOSINFO_0.0.1 { osinfo_os_add_device; osinfo_os_get_family; osinfo_os_get_distro; + osinfo_os_get_is_snapshot; osinfo_os_get_media_list; osinfo_os_add_media; osinfo_os_get_tree_list; diff --git a/osinfo/osinfo_loader.c b/osinfo/osinfo_loader.c index f852de8..0c873a0 100644 --- a/osinfo/osinfo_loader.c +++ b/osinfo/osinfo_loader.c @@ -1097,6 +1097,7 @@ static void osinfo_loader_os(OsinfoLoader *loader, const gchar *const keys[] = { OSINFO_OS_PROP_FAMILY, OSINFO_OS_PROP_DISTRO, + OSINFO_OS_PROP_IS_SNAPSHOT, NULL }; if (!id) { diff --git a/osinfo/osinfo_os.c b/osinfo/osinfo_os.c index 638d9c1..5544036 100644 --- a/osinfo/osinfo_os.c +++ b/osinfo/osinfo_os.c @@ -402,6 +402,24 @@ const gchar *osinfo_os_get_distro(OsinfoOs *os) } /** + * osinfo_os_get_is_snapshot: + * @os: an #OsinfoOs + * + * Use this to determine if @os is just a snapshot and not an actual released + * product yet. For example, gnome-continuous images for development snapshots + * of GNOME and pre-release and nightly build ISOs of Fedora etc. + * + * Returns: (transfer none): %TRUE if @os is a snapshot, %FALSE otherwise. + */ +gboolean osinfo_os_get_is_snapshot(OsinfoOs *os) +{ + g_return_val_if_fail(OSINFO_IS_OS(os), FALSE); + + return osinfo_entity_get_param_value_boolean(OSINFO_ENTITY(os), + "is-snapshot"); +} + +/** * osinfo_os_get_media_list: * @os: an operating system * diff --git a/osinfo/osinfo_os.h b/osinfo/osinfo_os.h index d667e3b..93b5961 100644 --- a/osinfo/osinfo_os.h +++ b/osinfo/osinfo_os.h @@ -55,8 +55,9 @@ typedef struct _OsinfoOsClass OsinfoOsClass; typedef struct _OsinfoOsPrivate OsinfoOsPrivate; -#define OSINFO_OS_PROP_FAMILY "family" -#define OSINFO_OS_PROP_DISTRO "distro" +#define OSINFO_OS_PROP_FAMILY "family" +#define OSINFO_OS_PROP_DISTRO "distro" +#define OSINFO_OS_PROP_IS_SNAPSHOT "is-snapshot" /* object */ struct _OsinfoOs @@ -93,6 +94,7 @@ OsinfoDeviceLinkList *osinfo_os_get_device_links(OsinfoOs *os, OsinfoFilter *fil OsinfoDeviceLink *osinfo_os_add_device(OsinfoOs *os, OsinfoDevice *dev); const gchar *osinfo_os_get_family(OsinfoOs *os); const gchar *osinfo_os_get_distro(OsinfoOs *os); +gboolean osinfo_os_get_is_snapshot(OsinfoOs *os); OsinfoMediaList *osinfo_os_get_media_list(OsinfoOs *os); void osinfo_os_add_media(OsinfoOs *os, OsinfoMedia *media); OsinfoTreeList *osinfo_os_get_tree_list(OsinfoOs *os); -- 1.8.3.1 From zeeshanak at gnome.org Thu Oct 3 22:02:40 2013 From: zeeshanak at gnome.org (Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 01:02:40 +0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH 2/3] gnome: Add info for gnome-continuous 3.12 In-Reply-To: <1380837761-5030-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> References: <1380837761-5030-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> Message-ID: <1380837761-5030-3-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" gnome-continuous is continuous integration system so images produced by it track the git master of all modules and now that GNOME 3.10 is out and many projects have branched for 3.10 maintainance, these images are already 3.12 (3.11 at the moment but thats splitting hair I guess). --- data/oses/gnome.xml.in | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) diff --git a/data/oses/gnome.xml.in b/data/oses/gnome.xml.in index 20b4b6a..b393116 100644 --- a/data/oses/gnome.xml.in +++ b/data/oses/gnome.xml.in @@ -89,4 +89,25 @@ + + gnome-continuous-3.12 + <_name>GNOME 3.12 + 3.12 + <_vendor>GNOME Project + linux + gnome + + + true + + 2014-03-25 + + + + 2 + 1073741824 + + + + -- 1.8.3.1 From zeeshanak at gnome.org Thu Oct 3 22:02:41 2013 From: zeeshanak at gnome.org (Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 01:02:41 +0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH 3/3] fedora: Add generic entry for future releases In-Reply-To: <1380837761-5030-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> References: <1380837761-5030-1-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> Message-ID: <1380837761-5030-4-git-send-email-zeeshanak@gnome.org> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" This is to ensure that we do recognise medias of future releases of Fedora and therefore give apps some clue about what they are dealing with and some rough estimate of required resources. --- data/oses/fedora.xml.in | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+) diff --git a/data/oses/fedora.xml.in b/data/oses/fedora.xml.in index 06abc85..aa0acf9 100644 --- a/data/oses/fedora.xml.in +++ b/data/oses/fedora.xml.in @@ -1532,4 +1532,56 @@