On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:24:55PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:40:06PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >> 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? >> > >> > I think so. Though concretely why do we need to expose this information? In >> > all cases user of this information will need to drop it to a disk image >> > which will be passed to the VM, no? >> >> Without this information, apps not only have to copy unnecessary >> driver files but most probably (as is the case with spice-guest-tools >> binary in Boxes) also need to create a redundant disk image to copy >> the files to when drivers are incompatible with scripts. Also same >> drivers can be available in multiple formats so Apps should be able to >> pick one in compatible (with script) format. > > At this point, this is all theoritical, isn't it? We support one > post-install format, which must be a .exe supporting the /S switch, and > which has to be copied to an ISO image. Wouldn't it be better to postpone > this API until there's a need for it? No, apps need to know this to already put the right checks/filters in place. Things will break for them when we actually have incompatibility between driver format and what scripts support. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
