[Libosinfo] [PATCH osinfo-db 0/6] centos and scientific linux

[Fabiano Fidêncio]

On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 13:22 +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 18:41 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > This series adds:
> > 
> > * centos5 entries
> > * centos6 <tree> data
> > * scientificlinux 5.X
> > * scientificlinux 6.X
> > * scientificlinux 7.X
> > 
> > No iso data is added, just URLs. I'm trying to get osinfo-db to
> > have
> > all the treeinfo coverage that virt-install has.
> 
> Cole, in the general the series look good (apart from one change that
> has to be for "Add scientificlinux-7.X".
> 
> There's one thing that I'm interested to know, though:
> - Is x.y considered EOL whenever x.(y+1) is released? I mean, will
> 7.6
> be considered EOL whenever 7.7 is released? If so, we'd also have to
> add the EOL to the 7.x entries.
> 
> Anyways, for patches #1 to #5:
> Reviewed-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio at redhat.com> 

Actually, let me take my "Reviewed-by" back.
Please, take a look at 5cac22bc68[0].

There, the commit message states:
centos: Remove URLs pointing to vault.centos.org

As vault.centos.org doesn't keep any ISO anymore, let's just remove
them from our db.

Along with the URLs removal, let's remove together the tree's as those
can't be accessed without a valid URL.

Removing all the vault.centos.org URLs matches with the recommendation
given by CentOS folks in #centos-devel:
"so in short, if some program links to vault, it's most likely not a
good idea and may not even work"

[0]: 
https://gitlab.com/libosinfo/osinfo-db/commit/5cac22bc6852d56988ff4be090551c5ec2f3f108

So, I guess the path to take is to drop #1 and #3.

Best Regards,
-- 
Fabiano Fidêncio