On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 06:41:02PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> > > NB: most commit logs in this series consist of just the short log, slightly > longer commit messages wouldn't hurt imo. In this case you can detail why > this API is needed/why people will want to use it for example. OK, i'll modify if this commit is not dropped. For the rest, I'll have another look and see what I can do. > I'm still not fully convinced that we really need all this 'format' API in > the first place, pre/post install drivers and install scripts are all > listed in an <os> node, if an install script for a given OS does not > support a driver format, why is it listed in the first place in the <os> > node? I just wanted to support the case of providing information about drivers even if our autoinstallation script does not support them. Having said that I'm not sure such information would be of any use to the apps. No strong opinions so I'll let you decide if its needed or not. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
