Zeeshan, On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Fabiano, > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) >> <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> --- >>> data/os/microsoft.com/win-7.xml.in | 8 ++++---- >>> data/os/microsoft.com/win-xp.xml.in | 8 ++++---- >>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/data/os/microsoft.com/win-7.xml.in b/data/os/microsoft.com/win-7.xml.in >>> index 2cb6488..8da4ccb 100644 >>> --- a/data/os/microsoft.com/win-7.xml.in >>> +++ b/data/os/microsoft.com/win-7.xml.in >>> @@ -205,8 +205,8 @@ >>> >>> <!-- All virtio and QXL device drivers, and spice-vdagent --> >>> <driver arch="i686" location="https://zeenix.fedorapeople.org/drivers/win-tools/postinst"; signed="false"> >>> - <file>spice-guest-tools-0.65.exe</file> >>> - <file>spice-guest-tools-0.65.cmd</file> >>> + <file>spice-guest-tools-0.100.exe</file> >>> + <file>spice-guest-tools-0.100.cmd</file> >>> <file>redhat09.cer</file> >>> <file>redhat10.cer</file> >> >> I've noticed that these certificate files are not used anymore with >> the spice-guest-tools-0.100. So, is there any reason for keeping those >> files here? > > I was not aware of that. I was under the impression that they are > required by Windows. According to https://zeenix.fedorapeople.org/drivers/win-tools/postinst/spice-guest-tools-0.74.cmd they are. But then you removed the files for the 0.100.cmd file and that's the reason I thought they are not needed anymore. So, most likely they are still needed and those lines got removed mistakenly, is it? How did you test the 0.100.cmd file? > >> Also, spice-space.org provides a direct link for the latest driver[0], >> what makes the maintainability easier. Why not start using that for >> the spice-guest-tools? > > Well the API/XML allows for only one location per driver so if we can > ditch both certificate and cmd files, we can simply direct to the > official location. > >> Another question that comes to my mind is why don't we generate/keep >> the .cmd file inside libosinfo as we do for the installation scripts? > > Because it's driver-specific (it's only meant to pass the /S flag to > actual driver binary) and installation scripts are kept generic and > independent of drivers. App is informed of the driver from the OS > entry and if it decides to install them, it copies them to install > disk and informs the scripts about location of driver files and > scripts then just install binaries, as instructed by the app. > > Feel free to suggest a better way of handing this. > > Being completely honest here, I do believe the best way to handle the installation of spice-guest-tools is not on libosinfo neither on gnome-boxes. It seems as one the things that must be handled by libvirt-designer/builder in the future. So, my suggestion for now is to keep those files under spice-space.org. In the same way we have the spice-guest-tools-latest.exe we can have the spice-guest-tools-latest.cmd and the certificates (if they are really needed). IMO, it would make the maintainability easier as it would be done for free, for every release. Christophe, Zeeshan, what do you think about my suggestion? Just a note. Here we are discussing only about the spice-guest-stools. For the viostor files, I've briefly talked with Cole and he will start a thread in the near future about exposing those files in the best way for us. So, in the near future, we can also remove those from Zeeshan's personal fedora space. > > -- > Regards, > > Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) > > _______________________________________________ > Libosinfo mailing list > Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
