On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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, ... Since we have WARN and STRICT separately, RECOMMEND would only mean that its recommended and OS/script will still accept unsigned drivers. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
