[Libosinfo] [PATCH 4/8] installer: API to query supported device driver formats

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Christophe Fergeau
<cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:24:55PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:40:06PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Christophe Fergeau
>> >> <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:18:43AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> >> >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak at gnome.org>
>> >> >> diff --git a/osinfo/osinfo_install_script.h b/osinfo/osinfo_install_script.h
>> >> >> index d91751e..82486ef 100644
>> >> >> --- a/osinfo/osinfo_install_script.h
>> >> >> +++ b/osinfo/osinfo_install_script.h
>> >> >> @@ -163,6 +165,9 @@ OsinfoPathFormat osinfo_install_script_get_path_format(OsinfoInstallScript *scri
>> >> >>  gboolean osinfo_install_script_get_can_pre_install_drivers(OsinfoInstallScript *script);
>> >> >>  gboolean osinfo_install_script_get_can_post_install_drivers(OsinfoInstallScript *script);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +OsinfoDeviceDriverFormat osinfo_install_script_get_pre_install_driver_format(OsinfoInstallScript *script);
>> >> >> +OsinfoDeviceDriverFormat osinfo_install_script_get_post_install_driver_format(OsinfoInstallScript *script);
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't think assuming that a given installer will support only one driver
>> >> > format is expressive enough. For Windows post-install drivers, supporting
>> >> > unpacked Windows drivers in addition to running a .exe shouldn't be very
>> >> > hard, and this API would not work there.
>> >>
>> >> I see you point. I can make it a list. Would that be good?
>> >
>> > I think so. Though concretely why do we need to expose this information? In
>> > all cases user of this information will need to drop it to a disk image
>> > which will be passed to the VM, no?
>>
>> Without this information, apps not only have to copy unnecessary
>> driver files but most probably (as is the case with spice-guest-tools
>> binary in Boxes) also need to create a redundant disk image to copy
>> the files to when drivers are incompatible with scripts. Also same
>> drivers can be available in multiple formats so Apps should be able to
>> pick one in compatible (with script) format.
>
> At this point, this is all theoritical, isn't it? We support one
> post-install format, which must be a .exe supporting the /S switch, and
> which has to be copied to an ISO image. Wouldn't it be better to postpone
> this API until there's a need for it?

No, apps need to know this to already put the right checks/filters in
place. Things will break for them when we actually have
incompatibility between driver format and what scripts support.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124