On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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? > > Removed where? I have not removed any files. Please, take a look on the link that I pointed out, Zeeshan. Here is the content of spice-guest-tools-0.74.cmd: certutil -addstore "TrustedPublisher" redhat09.cer certutil -addstore "TrustedPublisher" redhat10.cer spice-guest-tools-0.74.exe /S certutil -delstore "TrustedPublisher" "Red Hat, Inc." EXIT And here is the content of spice-guest-tools-0.100.cmd: spice-guest-tools-0.100.exe /S EXIT Seems that you removed those lines while copying and pasting the .cmd file's content. > >> How did you test the 0.100.cmd file? > > I have not, yet, no. Please, test it before submitting the patch then or at least make clear that you submitted something not test at all. ;-\ > >>>> 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. > > libvirt-designer/builder are not going to be made of magic. They are > going to rely heavily on libosinfo and will have a lot of code/logic > that currently Boxes has. So they are not going to solve anything for > libosinfo. If you have a suggestion on how to do things better > (through these libraries), it should apply to Boxes currently. So, we can introduce the spice-guest-tools-latest.cmd file on Boxes tree, have it installed and copy it from the user's disk when it's needed. It works for me. > >> 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? > > Sure. Someone else would need to make it happen though. :) > I'd like to hear from Christophe here as well. > > > -- > Regards, > > Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
