On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 05:29:18AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 04:54:08AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Some OS vendors recommend or require device drivers to be signed by them > >> before these device drivers could be installed on their OS. > > > > A bit inaccurate since we have a workaround to install unsigned drivers. > > Not sure how to say it better though. > > Well from the app's POV the script in question is not requiring signed > drivers. Perhaps we can have another value in SigningReq enum that > would give this info to App (if it cares): > OSINFO_DEVICE_DRIVER_SIGNING_REQ_RECOMMENDED ? Oh, I was more questioning the API documentation/commit log. If you can just improve the wording, that's fine with me. 'RECOMMENDED' could be good too, though it raises the question of what happens when going with unsigned drivers on REQ_RECOMMENDED systems. Will this work flawlessly, will some warnings be shown, ... Christophe
Attachment:
pgp5jy7TfD6QV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
