From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=210.71.195.43; helo=out03.hibox.biz; envelope-from=tim.lewis@insyde.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from out03.hibox.biz (out03.hibox.biz [210.71.195.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A68B22568624 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:30:39 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2ClAgC7qaFa/ww0GKxeGgEBAQEBAgEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEIAQEBAYMjLWZvKINQixGPBTIBY4IykXeCFQoYC4R8BAICgwkiNhYBAgEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQJrJ4UjAQEBBAEHAhkzCCcBAwIGAw0BAwQBAQECAiYCAhkPERABBQgCBAESC?= =?us-ascii?q?wWFCQ+rcIImIQKIRIITBYEOhCeEBIUTgy4EGYRfgmIEjmSLawkCgguEPIV7hCS?= =?us-ascii?q?JHoVDiXmHToEsJQcqgVJwgxISLYIkbgECgRUfNwGLOQEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,442,1515427200"; d="scan'208";a="5823690" Received: from unknown (HELO hb3-BKT202.hibox.biz) ([172.24.52.12]) by out03.hibox.biz with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2018 05:36:50 +0800 Received: from unknown (HELO hb3-BKT103.hibox.biz) ([172.24.51.13]) by hb3-BKT202.hibox.biz with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2018 05:36:52 +0800 Received: from unknown (HELO hb3-IN03.hibox.biz) ([172.24.12.13]) by hb3-BKT103.hibox.biz with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2018 05:36:52 +0800 X-Remote-IP: 73.116.1.175 X-Remote-Host: c-73-116-1-175.hsd1.ca.comcast.net X-SBRS: -10.0 X-MID: 10762653 X-Auth-ID: tim.lewis@insyde.com X-EnvelopeFrom: tim.lewis@insyde.com hiBox-Sender: 1 Received: from c-73-116-1-175.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (HELO DESKTOPAVHFBJF) ([73.116.1.175]) by hb3-IN03.hibox.biz with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 09 Mar 2018 05:36:51 +0800 From: "Tim Lewis" To: "'Laszlo Ersek'" , "'Bjorge, Erik C'" , References: <7FE3244EBB31F1449E4EC79CFE44E3F4ACA8ED8F@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> <00ef01d3b708$059e05e0$10da11a0$@insyde.com> <2936c498-170d-84b8-4b1b-e103c463eefd@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <2936c498-170d-84b8-4b1b-e103c463eefd@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:36:48 -0800 Message-ID: <017401d3b725$92422e00$b6c68a00$@insyde.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-index: AQE/mp2iTChF+hHEA/7BCZfUIzzdGgGxbNEuAqZ1Zw2kzFScwA== Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal to halt automatic builds of Windows BaseTools executables X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 21:30:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-language: en-us Laszlo, Erik -- I understand this dislike from some open source developers. I respect = that and am glad that EDK2 provides a way to accommodate this = preference. But "most" is a strong term. I would venture to say that a = good number (and probably the majority) of the people using EDK2-derived = code and tools are fine with the current situation. The only reason I would have Python on most of my company's dev systems = would be for EDK2. Since (a) the current system is working and (b) since = the possibility for rebuild is available for those who want it, it = doesn't weigh heavily enough IMO to change the current situation.=20 Regards, Tim -----Original Message----- From: Laszlo Ersek =20 Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 1:19 PM To: Tim Lewis ; 'Bjorge, Erik C' = ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [edk2] RFC: Proposal to halt automatic builds of Windows = BaseTools executables On 03/08/18 19:05, Tim Lewis wrote: > Erik -- >=20 > What is the justification? Moving from more immediately usable to less = > immediately usable doesn't seem, on the surface, to be a good = direction. > Why not go the other direction and pre-build the binaries for the=20 > other environments? I'd just like to offer one data point for the last question: most open = source developers *really* dislike running any native binaries that were = built by neither (a) themselves nor (b) the provider of their OS = distribution. To give you an example for (b), Fedora provides the "edk2-tools" package = (built from the "edk2" source package), and "edk2-tools" definitely = installs native binaries: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=3D13354362 The difference is that these binaries were built in a build environment = that matches the rest of Fedora [*] and is generally trusted by Fedora = users. [*] For example, binaries could be instrumented for security purposes = system-wide; some buffer overflows in a native (C) application could be = caught automatically as a result. Thanks, Laszlo