From fidencio at redhat.com Mon Sep 2 07:41:00 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?q?Fabiano=20Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:41:00 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [osinfo-db PATCH 0/4] Update dead-links Message-ID: <20190902074104.16511-1-fidencio@redhat.com> Ubuntu 18.04: - Point to 18.04.3 release; Ubuntu 18.10: - Fix End Of Life date - Point to old-releases.ubuntu.com Fedora Rawhide: - Remove Workstation trees All the patches have been pushed already, under the "test breakage" rule. Fabiano Fid?ncio (4): ubuntu-18.04: Update URLs to point to 18.04.3 release ubuntu-18.10: Fix eol date ubuntu-18.10: Update dead links fedora-rawhide: Remove "Workstation" trees .../fedoraproject.org/fedora-rawhide.xml.in | 22 ------------------- data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.04.xml.in | 10 ++++----- data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in | 14 ++++++------ 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) -- 2.21.0 From fidencio at redhat.com Mon Sep 2 07:41:01 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?q?Fabiano=20Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:41:01 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [osinfo-db PATCH 1/4] ubuntu-18.04: Update URLs to point to 18.04.3 release In-Reply-To: <20190902074104.16511-1-fidencio@redhat.com> References: <20190902074104.16511-1-fidencio@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190902074104.16511-2-fidencio@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fid?ncio --- data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.04.xml.in | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.04.xml.in b/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.04.xml.in index da3dc37..6d8e8b2 100644 --- a/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.04.xml.in +++ b/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.04.xml.in @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ - http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/18.04/release/ubuntu-18.04.2-server-amd64.iso + http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/18.04/release/ubuntu-18.04.3-server-amd64.iso Ubuntu-Server 18.04(.\d\+?)? LTS amd64 @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ casper/initrd - http://releases.ubuntu.com/releases/bionic/ubuntu-18.04.2-desktop-amd64.iso + http://releases.ubuntu.com/releases/bionic/ubuntu-18.04.3-desktop-amd64.iso Ubuntu 18.04(.\d\+?)? LTS amd64 @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ - http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/18.04/release/ubuntu-18.04.2-server-arm64.iso + http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/18.04/release/ubuntu-18.04.3-server-arm64.iso Ubuntu-Server 18.04(.\d\+?)? LTS arm64 @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ install/initrd.gz - http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/18.04/release/ubuntu-18.04.2-server-ppc64el.iso + http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/18.04/release/ubuntu-18.04.3-server-ppc64el.iso Ubuntu-Server 18.04(.\d\+?)? LTS ppc64 @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ install/initrd.gz - http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/18.04/release/ubuntu-18.04.2-server-s390x.iso + http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/18.04/release/ubuntu-18.04.3-server-s390x.iso Ubuntu-Server 18.04(.\d\+?)? LTS s390x -- 2.21.0 From fidencio at redhat.com Mon Sep 2 07:41:02 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?q?Fabiano=20Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:41:02 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [osinfo-db PATCH 2/4] ubuntu-18.10: Fix eol date In-Reply-To: <20190902074104.16511-1-fidencio@redhat.com> References: <20190902074104.16511-1-fidencio@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190902074104.16511-3-fidencio@redhat.com> According to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases, ubuntu-18.10 has reached its eol date on July 18, 2019. Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fid?ncio --- data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in b/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in index e8d22c0..9400d2d 100644 --- a/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in +++ b/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ 2018-10-18 - 2019-01-31 + 2019-07-18 -- 2.21.0 From fidencio at redhat.com Mon Sep 2 07:41:03 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?q?Fabiano=20Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:41:03 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [osinfo-db PATCH 3/4] ubuntu-18.10: Update dead links In-Reply-To: <20190902074104.16511-1-fidencio@redhat.com> References: <20190902074104.16511-1-fidencio@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190902074104.16511-4-fidencio@redhat.com> All ISOs have been moved to old-releases.ubuntu.com. Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fid?ncio --- data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in b/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in index 9400d2d..b46f188 100644 --- a/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in +++ b/data/os/ubuntu.com/ubuntu-18.10.xml.in @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ - http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/releases/18.10/release/ubuntu-18.10-server-amd64.iso + http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/18.10/ubuntu-18.10-server-amd64.iso Ubuntu-Server 18.10(.\d\+?)? amd64 751828992 @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ - http://releases.ubuntu.com/18.10/ubuntu-18.10-live-server-amd64.iso + http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/18.10/ubuntu-18.10-live-server-amd64.iso Ubuntu-Server 18.10(.\d\+?)? amd64 923795456 @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ casper/initrd - http://releases.ubuntu.com/18.10/ubuntu-18.10-desktop-amd64.iso + http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/18.10/ubuntu-18.10-desktop-amd64.iso Ubuntu 18.10(.\d\+?)? amd64 @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ - http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/releases/18.10/release/ubuntu-18.10-server-arm64.iso + http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/18.10/ubuntu-18.10-server-arm64.iso Ubuntu-Server 18.10(.\d\+?)? arm64 @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ install/initrd.gz - http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/releases/18.10/release/ubuntu-18.10-server-ppc64el.iso + http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/18.10/ubuntu-18.10-server-ppc64el.iso Ubuntu-Server 18.10(.\d\+?)? ppc64 @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ install/initrd.gz - http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/releases/18.10/release/ubuntu-18.10-server-s390x.iso + http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/18.10/ubuntu-18.10-server-s390x.iso Ubuntu-Server 18.10(.\d\+?)? s390x -- 2.21.0 From fidencio at redhat.com Mon Sep 2 07:41:04 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?q?Fabiano=20Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 09:41:04 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [osinfo-db PATCH 4/4] fedora-rawhide: Remove "Workstation" trees In-Reply-To: <20190902074104.16511-1-fidencio@redhat.com> References: <20190902074104.16511-1-fidencio@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190902074104.16511-5-fidencio@redhat.com> Fedora Workstation is no longer releasing trees, according to: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/45 Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fid?ncio --- .../fedoraproject.org/fedora-rawhide.xml.in | 22 ------------------- 1 file changed, 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/data/os/fedoraproject.org/fedora-rawhide.xml.in b/data/os/fedoraproject.org/fedora-rawhide.xml.in index 1b13ad0..96299f4 100644 --- a/data/os/fedoraproject.org/fedora-rawhide.xml.in +++ b/data/os/fedoraproject.org/fedora-rawhide.xml.in @@ -36,28 +36,6 @@ - - - https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Workstation/x86_64/os - - Fedora - Rawhide - x86_64 - Workstation - - - - - - https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Workstation/armhfp/os - - Fedora - Rawhide - armhfp - Workstation - - - https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Server/x86_64/os -- 2.21.0 From fidencio at redhat.com Mon Sep 2 08:26:26 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Fabiano_Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:26:26 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] NetBSD: add NetBSD 8.1 data In-Reply-To: <20190828223641.3905-1-vchaves@ymail.com> References: <20190828223641.3905-1-vchaves@ymail.com> Message-ID: Vicente, Firstly, thanks a lot for the contribution! There are a few things though, that I'd like to understand better and/or have to be fixed before pushing the patches. Please, see the comments below. On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:46 AM Vicente Chaves de Melo wrote: > > --- > data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > .../netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64-boot-com.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ > .../netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64-boot.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ > .../netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ > .../netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386-boot-com.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ > .../netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386-boot.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ > .../netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ > 7 files changed, 262 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in > create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64-boot-com.iso.txt > create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64-boot.iso.txt > create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64.iso.txt > create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386-boot-com.iso.txt > create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386-boot.iso.txt > create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386.iso.txt > > diff --git a/data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in b/data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..cd81e68 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in > @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ > + > + > + > + netbsd8.1 > + <_name>NetBSD 8.1 > + 8.1 > + <_vendor>NetBSD Project > + netbsd > + netbsd > + > + 8.1 should upgrade & derive-from 8.0, not 8.1 Btw, did 8.0 reach its EoL? If so, would be worth updating that entry as well (together with older entries, if possible). [snip] > + > + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/amd64/installation/cdrom/boot.iso > + > + NetBSD > + NETBSD_81 > + 233302016 > + > + > + > + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/amd64/installation/cdrom/boot-com.iso > + > + NetBSD > + NETBSD_81 > + 233302016 > + > + I can see that both boot.iso and boot-com.iso have the very same volume-id, system-id, and even volume-size. What's the difference between these medias, if any? Also, would be worth to add a "netinst" variant for those, in case they're supposed to be used as net installers. [snip] > + > + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/i386/installation/cdrom/boot.iso > + > + NetBSD > + NETBSD_81 > + 215072768 > + > + > + > + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/i386/installation/cdrom/boot-com.iso > + > + NetBSD > + NETBSD_81 > + 215072768 > + > + Same comment as above. > + > + [snip] Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fid?ncio From vchaves at ymail.com Tue Sep 3 04:37:51 2019 From: vchaves at ymail.com (Vicente Chaves de Melo) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 01:37:51 -0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] NetBSD: add NetBSD 8.1 data In-Reply-To: References: <20190828223641.3905-1-vchaves@ymail.com> Message-ID: <1283e760-684e-a485-5975-683f65dca026@ymail.com> Hi Fabiano, 1) Version 8.1 is derived from branch 8.0. Already fixed this in the new patch. 2) Version 8.0 is still supported. 3) The boot.iso and boot-com.iso files are network installed. One uses the VGA console and the other the serial console. 4) Tried to use "variant id", please make sure it is correct. Vicente. On 9/2/19 5:26 AM, Fabiano Fid??ncio wrote: > Vicente, > > Firstly, thanks a lot for the contribution! > > There are a few things though, that I'd like to understand better > and/or have to be fixed before pushing the patches. > Please, see the comments below. > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:46 AM Vicente Chaves de Melo > wrote: >> --- >> data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> .../netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64-boot-com.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ >> .../netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64-boot.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ >> .../netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ >> .../netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386-boot-com.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ >> .../netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386-boot.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ >> .../netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386.iso.txt | 33 +++++++++++ >> 7 files changed, 262 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in >> create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64-boot-com.iso.txt >> create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64-boot.iso.txt >> create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-amd64.iso.txt >> create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386-boot-com.iso.txt >> create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386-boot.iso.txt >> create mode 100644 tests/isodata/netbsd/netbsd8.1/NetBSD-8.1-i386.iso.txt >> >> diff --git a/data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in b/data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..cd81e68 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in >> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ >> + >> + >> + >> + netbsd8.1 >> + <_name>NetBSD 8.1 >> + 8.1 >> + <_vendor>NetBSD Project >> + netbsd >> + netbsd >> + >> + > 8.1 should upgrade & derive-from 8.0, not 8.1 > Btw, did 8.0 reach its EoL? If so, would be worth updating that entry > as well (together with older entries, if possible). > > [snip] > >> + >> + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/amd64/installation/cdrom/boot.iso >> + >> + NetBSD >> + NETBSD_81 >> + 233302016 >> + >> + >> + >> + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/amd64/installation/cdrom/boot-com.iso >> + >> + NetBSD >> + NETBSD_81 >> + 233302016 >> + >> + > I can see that both boot.iso and boot-com.iso have the very same > volume-id, system-id, and even volume-size. > What's the difference between these medias, if any? > > Also, would be worth to add a "netinst" variant for those, in case > they're supposed to be used as net installers. > > [snip] > >> + >> + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/i386/installation/cdrom/boot.iso >> + >> + NetBSD >> + NETBSD_81 >> + 215072768 >> + >> + >> + >> + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/i386/installation/cdrom/boot-com.iso >> + >> + NetBSD >> + NETBSD_81 >> + 215072768 >> + >> + > Same comment as above. >> + >> + > [snip] > > Best Regards, From vchaves at ymail.com Tue Sep 3 04:38:33 2019 From: vchaves at ymail.com (Vicente Chaves de Melo) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 01:38:33 -0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] NetBSD: add NetBSD 8.1 data Message-ID: <20190903043833.4262-1-vchaves@ymail.com> --- data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+) create mode 100644 data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in diff --git a/data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in b/data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fb3dea1 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/os/netbsd.org/netbsd-8.1.xml.in @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ + + + + netbsd8.1 + <_name>NetBSD 8.1 + 8.1 + <_vendor>NetBSD Project + netbsd + netbsd + + + + + <_name>NetBSD 8.1 Network Install + + + <_name>NetBSD 8.1 Network Install (Serial Console) + + + 2019-05-31 + + + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/images/NetBSD-8.1-amd64.iso + + NetBSD + NETBSD_81 + 757254144 + + + + + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/amd64/installation/cdrom/boot.iso + + NetBSD + NETBSD_81 + 233302016 + + + + + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/amd64/installation/cdrom/boot-com.iso + + NetBSD + NETBSD_81 + 233302016 + + + + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/images/NetBSD-8.1-i386.iso + + NetBSD + NETBSD_81 + 716562432 + + + + + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/i386/installation/cdrom/boot.iso + + NetBSD + NETBSD_81 + 215072768 + + + + + https://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-8.1/i386/installation/cdrom/boot-com.iso + + NetBSD + NETBSD_81 + 215072768 + + + + \ No newline at end of file -- 2.16.4 From fidencio at redhat.com Tue Sep 3 07:10:59 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Fabiano_Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:10:59 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] NetBSD: add NetBSD 8.1 data In-Reply-To: <1283e760-684e-a485-5975-683f65dca026@ymail.com> References: <20190828223641.3905-1-vchaves@ymail.com> <1283e760-684e-a485-5975-683f65dca026@ymail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:38 AM Vicente Chaves de Melo wrote: > > Hi Fabiano, > 1) Version 8.1 is derived from branch 8.0. Already fixed this in the new > patch. > 2) Version 8.0 is still supported. > 3) The boot.iso and boot-com.iso files are network installed. One uses > the VGA console and the other the serial console. It's really quite unfortunate that both ISOs have exactly the same ... everything. :-/ Due to that, it's impossible for libosinfo to differentiate one from the other. Do you think a RFE could be opened for NetBSD so, for future releases, they could have different volume ids for different ISOs? > 4) Tried to use "variant id", please make sure it is correct. It looks correct! :-) So, my suggestion ... and I'd do the change before pushing if I get your Ack ... Could we just mark both as netinst only? As there's no way to differentiate between them, I'd rather give less information (as "Network Install") than give wrong information (as showing "Serial Console") in the one that's not intended for that. Please, let me know if you agree with that and I'll push the patches with the changes done. No need to submit a v3. :-) [snip] From vchaves at ymail.com Tue Sep 3 14:12:15 2019 From: vchaves at ymail.com (Vicente Chaves) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 11:12:15 -0300 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] NetBSD: add NetBSD 8.1 data In-Reply-To: References: <20190828223641.3905-1-vchaves@ymail.com> <1283e760-684e-a485-5975-683f65dca026@ymail.com> Message-ID: <51aded27-e9e6-4a6b-a7cd-1f071ea1bce1@ymail.com> Hi Fabiano, I have no objection to your suggestion. You can move on and change as you see fit. Regards, Vicente ?Enviado por BlueMail ? Em 3 de set de 2019 04:11, em 04:11, "Fabiano Fid?ncio" escreveu: >On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:38 AM Vicente Chaves de Melo > wrote: >> >> Hi Fabiano, >> 1) Version 8.1 is derived from branch 8.0. Already fixed this in the >new >> patch. >> 2) Version 8.0 is still supported. >> 3) The boot.iso and boot-com.iso files are network installed. One >uses >> the VGA console and the other the serial console. > >It's really quite unfortunate that both ISOs have exactly the same ... >everything. :-/ >Due to that, it's impossible for libosinfo to differentiate one from >the other. > >Do you think a RFE could be opened for NetBSD so, for future releases, >they could have different volume ids for different ISOs? > >> 4) Tried to use "variant id", please make sure it is correct. > >It looks correct! :-) > >So, my suggestion ... and I'd do the change before pushing if I get >your Ack ... >Could we just mark both as netinst only? As there's no way to >differentiate between them, I'd rather give less information (as >"Network Install") than give wrong information (as showing "Serial >Console") in the one that's not intended for that. > >Please, let me know if you agree with that and I'll push the patches >with the changes done. No need to submit a v3. :-) >[snip] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fidencio at redhat.com Wed Sep 4 11:37:06 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Fabiano_Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 13:37:06 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] NetBSD: add NetBSD 8.1 data In-Reply-To: <51aded27-e9e6-4a6b-a7cd-1f071ea1bce1@ymail.com> References: <20190828223641.3905-1-vchaves@ymail.com> <1283e760-684e-a485-5975-683f65dca026@ymail.com> <51aded27-e9e6-4a6b-a7cd-1f071ea1bce1@ymail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:12 PM Vicente Chaves wrote: > > Hi Fabiano, > > I have no objection to your suggestion. You can move on and change as you see fit. Patch has been pushed! Thanks a lot for your contribution! From fidencio at redhat.com Thu Sep 5 17:08:27 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Fabiano_Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 19:08:27 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] force a UTF-8 locale for python3 to avoid broken ascii codec In-Reply-To: <20190327095706.24301-1-berrange@redhat.com> References: <20190327095706.24301-1-berrange@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:57 AM Daniel P. Berrang? wrote: > > The python3 ascii codec violates POSIX C locale requirements by not being > 8-bit clean in its text handling. It raises an error for any byte with > top bit set > > > return codecs.ascii_decode(input, self.errors)[0] > E UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xc3 in position 419: ordinal not in range(128) > > To avoid this python bug we must force use of a UTF-8 locale. Ideally we > would use the C.UTF-8 locale, however, that is not portable across OS, > only existing on certain Linux distros. Instead we use the en_us.UTF-8 > locale, but only for the character set data. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrang? > --- > > Pushed as a CI build fix for FreeBSD distros > > Makefile | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > index c63cb6e..9d7f109 100644 > --- a/Makefile > +++ b/Makefile > @@ -123,4 +123,4 @@ update-po: > done > > check: $(DATA_FILES) $(SCHEMA_FILES) > - $(PYTHON) -m pytest $(PYTEST_LOG_LEVEL) > + LC_ALL= LANG=C LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 $(PYTHON) -m pytest $(PYTEST_LOG_LEVEL) > -- > 2.20.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Libosinfo mailing list > Libosinfo at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo Daniel, This commit is the reason of the following breakage (in my personal gitlab account): https://gitlab.com/fidencio/osinfo-db/-/jobs/288707257 It seems to happen because both debian & fedora (30+) containers do not have the required locale. I'd like to ask your suggestion on how to proceed here: - Shall we explicitly include glibc-langpack-en as part of the base packages? - Its dependencies are: glibc, glibc-commonl - Its size is: 6.0 M (on Fedora 30); - Shall we work around osinfo-db tests in a way that we can make it work without setting the locale? Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fid?ncio From berrange at redhat.com Thu Sep 5 17:19:00 2019 From: berrange at redhat.com (Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?=) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:19:00 +0100 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] force a UTF-8 locale for python3 to avoid broken ascii codec In-Reply-To: References: <20190327095706.24301-1-berrange@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190905171900.GB2830@redhat.com> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 07:08:27PM +0200, Fabiano Fid?ncio wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:57 AM Daniel P. Berrang? wrote: > > > > The python3 ascii codec violates POSIX C locale requirements by not being > > 8-bit clean in its text handling. It raises an error for any byte with > > top bit set > > > > > return codecs.ascii_decode(input, self.errors)[0] > > E UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xc3 in position 419: ordinal not in range(128) > > > > To avoid this python bug we must force use of a UTF-8 locale. Ideally we > > would use the C.UTF-8 locale, however, that is not portable across OS, > > only existing on certain Linux distros. Instead we use the en_us.UTF-8 > > locale, but only for the character set data. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrang? > > --- > > > > Pushed as a CI build fix for FreeBSD distros > > > > Makefile | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > > index c63cb6e..9d7f109 100644 > > --- a/Makefile > > +++ b/Makefile > > @@ -123,4 +123,4 @@ update-po: > > done > > > > check: $(DATA_FILES) $(SCHEMA_FILES) > > - $(PYTHON) -m pytest $(PYTEST_LOG_LEVEL) > > + LC_ALL= LANG=C LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 $(PYTHON) -m pytest $(PYTEST_LOG_LEVEL) > > -- > > 2.20.1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Libosinfo mailing list > > Libosinfo at redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo > > Daniel, > > This commit is the reason of the following breakage (in my personal > gitlab account): > https://gitlab.com/fidencio/osinfo-db/-/jobs/288707257 > > It seems to happen because both debian & fedora (30+) containers do > not have the required locale. > I'd like to ask your suggestion on how to proceed here: > - Shall we explicitly include glibc-langpack-en as part of the base packages? > - Its dependencies are: glibc, glibc-commonl > - Its size is: 6.0 M (on Fedora 30); > - Shall we work around osinfo-db tests in a way that we can make it > work without setting the locale? In theory C.UTF-8 is our desired locale, but that is a non-standard concept that is only carried as a downstream patch by certain distros. Upstream glibc has not accepted it. It doesn't exist at all on *BSD. Thus we picked en_US.UTF-8 as the only option that gives us UTF-8 which is portable across all known operating systems. If you can't set the locale, the only option is to mandate python 3.7 as the minimum python version, which I think is too strict. IOW, we shoud just intall the langpack. FWIW, I'm proposing the exact same en_US.UTF-8 env var for libvirt python code, so we'll need to deal with the same problem shortly there too. 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 :| From abologna at redhat.com Thu Sep 5 17:40:54 2019 From: abologna at redhat.com (Andrea Bolognani) Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 19:40:54 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] force a UTF-8 locale for python3 to avoid broken ascii codec In-Reply-To: <20190905171900.GB2830@redhat.com> References: <20190327095706.24301-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20190905171900.GB2830@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 18:19 +0100, Daniel P. Berrang? wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 07:08:27PM +0200, Fabiano Fid?ncio wrote: > > It seems to happen because both debian & fedora (30+) containers do > > not have the required locale. > > I'd like to ask your suggestion on how to proceed here: > > - Shall we explicitly include glibc-langpack-en as part of the base packages? > > - Its dependencies are: glibc, glibc-commonl > > - Its size is: 6.0 M (on Fedora 30); > > - Shall we work around osinfo-db tests in a way that we can make it > > work without setting the locale? > > In theory C.UTF-8 is our desired locale, but that is a non-standard > concept that is only carried as a downstream patch by certain distros. > Upstream glibc has not accepted it. It doesn't exist at all on *BSD. > Thus we picked en_US.UTF-8 as the only option that gives us UTF-8 > which is portable across all known operating systems. > > If you can't set the locale, the only option is to mandate python > 3.7 as the minimum python version, which I think is too strict. > > IOW, we shoud just intall the langpack. Sounds like a reasonable enough explanation to me. > FWIW, I'm proposing the exact same en_US.UTF-8 env var for libvirt > python code, so we'll need to deal with the same problem shortly > there too. When talking to Fabiano about this, I suggested we might want to add the locale to the 'base' pseudo-project along with tools like git and patch, and reading the above seems to confirm that's indeed the direction we should go. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization From berrange at redhat.com Fri Sep 6 08:35:03 2019 From: berrange at redhat.com (Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?=) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:35:03 +0100 Subject: [Libosinfo] [PATCH] force a UTF-8 locale for python3 to avoid broken ascii codec In-Reply-To: References: <20190327095706.24301-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20190905171900.GB2830@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190906083503.GD5119@redhat.com> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 07:40:54PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 18:19 +0100, Daniel P. Berrang? wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 07:08:27PM +0200, Fabiano Fid?ncio wrote: > > > It seems to happen because both debian & fedora (30+) containers do > > > not have the required locale. > > > I'd like to ask your suggestion on how to proceed here: > > > - Shall we explicitly include glibc-langpack-en as part of the base packages? > > > - Its dependencies are: glibc, glibc-commonl > > > - Its size is: 6.0 M (on Fedora 30); > > > - Shall we work around osinfo-db tests in a way that we can make it > > > work without setting the locale? > > > > In theory C.UTF-8 is our desired locale, but that is a non-standard > > concept that is only carried as a downstream patch by certain distros. > > Upstream glibc has not accepted it. It doesn't exist at all on *BSD. > > Thus we picked en_US.UTF-8 as the only option that gives us UTF-8 > > which is portable across all known operating systems. > > > > If you can't set the locale, the only option is to mandate python > > 3.7 as the minimum python version, which I think is too strict. > > > > IOW, we shoud just intall the langpack. > > Sounds like a reasonable enough explanation to me. > > > FWIW, I'm proposing the exact same en_US.UTF-8 env var for libvirt > > python code, so we'll need to deal with the same problem shortly > > there too. > > When talking to Fabiano about this, I suggested we might want to add > the locale to the 'base' pseudo-project along with tools like git and > patch, and reading the above seems to confirm that's indeed the > direction we should go. Yeah, definitely get it installed for everything at once. 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 :| From fidencio at redhat.com Fri Sep 20 14:03:26 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?q?Fabiano=20Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:03:26 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [osinfo-db PATCH 0/2] Update dead links Message-ID: <20190920140328.1468258-1-fidencio@redhat.com> Debian 10.1 has been released on September 9th, let's update its links. Silverblue 28 has been archived, let's update its link. Patches have already been pushed. Fabiano Fid?ncio (2): debian10: Update dead links silverblue28: Update dead link data/os/debian.org/debian-10.xml.in | 24 +++++++++---------- .../os/fedoraproject.org/silverblue-28.xml.in | 2 +- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) -- 2.23.0 From fidencio at redhat.com Fri Sep 20 14:03:27 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?q?Fabiano=20Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:03:27 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [osinfo-db PATCH 1/2] debian10: Update dead links In-Reply-To: <20190920140328.1468258-1-fidencio@redhat.com> References: <20190920140328.1468258-1-fidencio@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190920140328.1468258-2-fidencio@redhat.com> Debian 10.1.0 has been released in September 9th. Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fid?ncio --- data/os/debian.org/debian-10.xml.in | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/data/os/debian.org/debian-10.xml.in b/data/os/debian.org/debian-10.xml.in index 1e0be52..583f8b8 100644 --- a/data/os/debian.org/debian-10.xml.in +++ b/data/os/debian.org/debian-10.xml.in @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/i386/iso-cd/debian-10.0.0-i386-netinst.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/i386/iso-cd/debian-10.1.0-i386-netinst.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ i386 n @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/amd64/iso-cd/debian-10.0.0-amd64-netinst.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/amd64/iso-cd/debian-10.1.0-amd64-netinst.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ amd64 n @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/arm64/iso-cd/debian-10.0.0-arm64-netinst.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/arm64/iso-cd/debian-10.1.0-arm64-netinst.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ arm64 n @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/armhf/iso-cd/debian-10.0.0-armhf-netinst.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/armhf/iso-cd/debian-10.1.0-armhf-netinst.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ armhf n @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/ppc64el/iso-cd/debian-10.0.0-ppc64el-netinst.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/ppc64el/iso-cd/debian-10.1.0-ppc64el-netinst.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ ppc64el n @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/s390x/iso-cd/debian-10.0.0-s390x-netinst.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/s390x/iso-cd/debian-10.1.0-s390x-netinst.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ s390x n @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/i386/iso-dvd/debian-10.0.0-i386-DVD-1.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/i386/iso-dvd/debian-10.1.0-i386-DVD-1.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ i386 (\d)+ @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/amd64/iso-dvd/debian-10.0.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/amd64/iso-dvd/debian-10.1.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ amd64 (\d)+ @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/arm64/iso-dvd/debian-10.0.0-arm64-DVD-1.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/arm64/iso-dvd/debian-10.1.0-arm64-DVD-1.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ arm64 (\d)+ @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/armhf/iso-dvd/debian-10.0.0-armhf-DVD-1.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/armhf/iso-dvd/debian-10.1.0-armhf-DVD-1.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ armhf (\d)+ @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/ppc64el/iso-dvd/debian-10.0.0-ppc64el-DVD-1.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/ppc64el/iso-dvd/debian-10.1.0-ppc64el-DVD-1.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ ppc64el (\d)+ @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ - http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/10.0.0/s390x/iso-dvd/debian-10.0.0-s390x-DVD-1.iso + http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/release/current/s390x/iso-dvd/debian-10.1.0-s390x-DVD-1.iso Debian 10.(\d)+.(\d)+ s390x (\d)+ -- 2.23.0 From fidencio at redhat.com Fri Sep 20 14:03:28 2019 From: fidencio at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?q?Fabiano=20Fid=C3=AAncio?=) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:03:28 +0200 Subject: [Libosinfo] [osinfo-db PATCH 2/2] silverblue28: Update dead link In-Reply-To: <20190920140328.1468258-1-fidencio@redhat.com> References: <20190920140328.1468258-1-fidencio@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190920140328.1468258-3-fidencio@redhat.com> ISO has been moved to archive. Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fid?ncio --- data/os/fedoraproject.org/silverblue-28.xml.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/data/os/fedoraproject.org/silverblue-28.xml.in b/data/os/fedoraproject.org/silverblue-28.xml.in index 9e9e3db..07c244e 100644 --- a/data/os/fedoraproject.org/silverblue-28.xml.in +++ b/data/os/fedoraproject.org/silverblue-28.xml.in @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ 2019-05-29 - https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/28/AtomicWorkstation/x86_64/iso/Fedora-AtomicWorkstation-ostree-x86_64-28-1.1.iso + https://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/releases/28/AtomicWorkstation/x86_64/iso/Fedora-AtomicWorkstation-ostree-x86_64-28-1.1.iso Fedora-AW-ostree-x86_64-28 LINUX -- 2.23.0