On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:18:43AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> >> diff --git a/osinfo/osinfo_install_script.h b/osinfo/osinfo_install_script.h >> index d91751e..82486ef 100644 >> --- a/osinfo/osinfo_install_script.h >> +++ b/osinfo/osinfo_install_script.h >> @@ -163,6 +165,9 @@ OsinfoPathFormat osinfo_install_script_get_path_format(OsinfoInstallScript *scri >> gboolean osinfo_install_script_get_can_pre_install_drivers(OsinfoInstallScript *script); >> gboolean osinfo_install_script_get_can_post_install_drivers(OsinfoInstallScript *script); >> >> +OsinfoDeviceDriverFormat osinfo_install_script_get_pre_install_driver_format(OsinfoInstallScript *script); >> +OsinfoDeviceDriverFormat osinfo_install_script_get_post_install_driver_format(OsinfoInstallScript *script); > > I don't think assuming that a given installer will support only one driver > format is expressive enough. For Windows post-install drivers, supporting > unpacked Windows drivers in addition to running a .exe shouldn't be very > hard, and this API would not work there. I see you point. I can make it a list. Would that be good? -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
