On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Alfonso Sanchez-Beato <alfonso.sanchez-be...@canonical.com> wrote: > I think it is perfectly fine to add operators that use the same MCC/MNC > code even if we cannot discriminate with the mvno_* fields. The list of > APN choices will grow, but NetworkManager is supposed to handle that > properly and eventually will get to the right one.
Right. > About the position in the file, although I understand that putting it at > the end might resolve more easily conflicts, I think it is better to > order by MCC/MNC, because that is the convention followed by all DBs. > Note that when we merge operators from an updated DB, we might found > that an operator we added at the end of the file might have already been > added to the DB we are updating from, and in fact putting them in order > would be the way to detect that and avoid duplicates. Besides, afaik we > do not have a "master" upstream DB, instead we have merged from > different DBs, so there will be always conflicts. Our main database is actually from AOSP, with a few additions, but I agree that it's better to have them all together, will change that. The other question, should I also change adding the mvno_* values? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1434605 Title: [APN] giffgaff APNs don't have the proper 'mvno' fields To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/android/+bug/1434605/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
