Support hardware requirements.

[denelon]

Custom Hardware Dependencies

Some packages require custom hardware.

• APC.PowerChutePersonalEdition version 3.1.0 winget-pkgs#19373
• PersonifyInc.ChromaCam version 3.1.3.0 winget-pkgs#25913

Proposed technical implementation details (optional)

Extend schema, and perform validations for hardware requirements

[vedantmgoyal9]

After this, I hope we would be able to add Nvidia GPU Drivers to the repository.

[denelon]

I've added the label "Hardware" and use a query to help find PRs identified as needing this feature.

[Rolling2405]

@denelon Any update on when this feature will be implemented?

[denelon]

@Rolling2405 this is likely to be a "long tail" feature. We've been discussing alternatives to having to go through the process to purchase hardware just for the sake of package validation. One of the concerns is how we deal with systems that may not meet the hardware requirements. We don't have a good way to filter apps out as we don't necessarily know how to probe for the required hardware in advance.

Maybe it could be as simple as a "Warning: This package has been identified as one requiring custom hardware". What are your thoughts on edge cases?

[Rolling2405]

@Rolling2405 this is likely to be a "long tail" feature. We've been discussing alternatives to having to go through the process to purchase hardware just for the sake of package validation. One of the concerns is how we deal with systems that may not meet the hardware requirements. We don't have a good way to filter apps out as we don't necessarily know how to probe for the required hardware in advance.

Maybe it could be as simple as a "Warning: This package has been identified as one requiring custom hardware". What are your thoughts on edge cases?

I think the warning about requiring custom hardware would be a good alternate solution to Microsoft purchasing the hardware to validate packages. Although, if Microsoft is able to purchase the hardware that would be best!

[denelon]

We may add an informational warning for packages with specific hardware requirements if the client isn't extended to check for them as a shorter-term solution. That would at least allow us to begin including hardware specific packages, but we will still need to have access to the specific hardware in order to perform validation.

[S1rDan]

One of the concerns is how we deal with systems that may not meet the hardware requirements. We don't have a good way to filter apps out as we don't necessarily know how to probe for the required hardware in advance.

Potentially silly question:
Why not make the user responsible for meeting the hardware requirements for any software they install until a solution is found?
So it would be my own fault if I tried to install something for which I don't have the necessary hardware. Or is there a deeper technical problem with simply allowing this?