[Nut-upsdev] Format of entires in data/driver.list

[Peter Selinger]

Arjen de Korte wrote:
> 
> I want to propose to change the format of the entries in the
> data/driver.list file. Currently the format is (according to the header)
> 
> # <manufacturer> <model name> <model extra> <driver>
> 
> Of these fields, the <model extra> field is not very well defined now. For
> many devices, it contains information about the communication interface
> used (serial / USB / SNMP) while for others it says something very model
> specific (for instance, which cable to use) or which protocol the UPS
> uses. Now that we're seeing more and more UPSes with both serial and USB
> connections, I think it makes sense to add another (mandatory) field that
> lists the communication interface used by the driver. This allows for
> easier sorting of the list of drivers, now that the list is growing.
> 
> I also want to suggest that if a UPS has both serial and USB interfaces,
> but we currently only support one, that we mention the other too with 'not
> supported' in the <driver> field. This will help users determine quickly
> (and unambiguously) if they can use the interface of their choice with
> NUT.

No objections to this, except I think we should say "not supported"
only in cases where it has been confirmed that the model does not work
with any NUT driver (like the Kebo).

Most often, we simply don't have the information on whether it works
or not. For example, no user has yet tried the Belkin F6C1200-UNV with
the serial port, but it's likely that it would work with the megatec
driver; similarly with the F6C100-UNV and the belkinunv driver. In
such cases, we should continue to list it neither as "supported" not
"unsupported".

-- Peter