Darren J Moffat wrote: > > Ideally we wouldn't have to hard code any of this and software providers > could act just like hardware ones and supply kcf with the list that they > support.
I had thought we were headed to this ideal scenario now, so when I saw it wasn't I wondered if the ideal scenario wasn't possible. > There is also the problem > of only allowing a mechanism from a single software provider at the > moment a restriction we don't have on hardware providers. Can you elaborate more on this problem? I'm not following what you're saying > > None of the userland changes that Dan has done would be wasted by a > future change in how we deal with providers and in fact this is really > the most important part of the change. If I hadn't stumped across some uninstall module questions, I wouldn't have noticed since I wasn't planning to review the kernel.. An then saw Dan's requirements and got confused..
