On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 04:25:20AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > Well from my POV, I have given enough arguments to conclude that this > API is *probably* needed and I don't see why this API will be harmful > (you can never know for sure of course). An API call doing nothing, or that has to be there even though it's not useful, or that appears in the API doc 'because at some point we thought this could be useful, but then we realized it was not, but we have to keep it not to break our ABI' is harmful. > >> BTW, if we decide to add these API then the driver signature API makes > >> as much sense to add. > > > > Actually I was surprised that you dropped the osinfo_driver_is_signed() > > patch; this one seems good to me. > > And I'm a bit surprised that you find that API useful on its own. It gives information about the drivers, it's not very useful, but some apps might want to display this state, or to make decisions depending on drivers being signed/unsigned, so why not. Though I won't push for it to be added either ;) Christophe
Attachment:
pgpWZl7REM2Ro.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
