Re: [edk2-devel] Progress on getting Uncrustify working for EDK2?

["Leif Lindholm" <leif@nuviainc.com>]

On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 21:20:51 +0000, Michael D Kinney wrote:
> > > Setting up a development work environment also requires the installation of tools such as
> > > compilers, NASM, IASL, etc.  These are not handled as part of BaseTools today.
> > 
> > No, but users are not required to install a specific, not-yet-upstream
> > version of a tool. This is the fundamental problem here.
> > 
> > Once the edk2 support is available in upstream uncrustify, there is a
> > substantial lag in how the updated version trickles down through
> > packaging systems.
> 
> There is an RFC with no negative feedback to move to NASM 2.15.05.
> 
> I do not believe that is the version supported in all the distros
> packaging systems yet.

It is in current Debian stable. It is *not* in Ubuntu LTS.

> So I expect there will likely be many windows of time where the 
> EDK II projects have a dependency on a tool in that state.
> 
> If this was a significant concern, why was it not raised with the
> NASM 2.15.05?

I might have raised it if I had been actively tracking NASM usage, but
I'll confess I don't. But even then - that is talking about NASM
2.15.05, released August 2020, not NASM HEAD today with some
additional patches.

> > > Supporting this indent style is one of the enhancements in the fork.  If we want to align
> > > to one of the indent styles supported by a wider array of source editors/IDEs, then that
> > > would require a change to the EDK II Coding Style Specification and approval from the
> > > EDK II community.
> > 
> > Yes. The above problem of getting the tool at the appropriate version
> > is why I previously stated my preference as being to change to coding
> > style so it matched what was already supported in upstream uncrustify.
> 
> Stating a preference without specific details on the exact style that is
> actionable by developers and verifiable does not help close on this
> topic.

The preference was raised here only as the alternative to requiring
uncrustify modifications.

I stated the delta (with specific details) in my email on 7 October,
and yes, you responeded to that, but no one else seemed interested in
that path, so I didn't follow up.

> Can you provide the specific details and update the BZs provided in an
> earlier version of this thread:
> 
> 	https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/81609
> 
> If you are not able to provide details, but are rejecting this proposal all
> together, then please be clear that you are rejecting the proposal so those
> that are working on it can move on to other priorities.

As per above.

/
    Leif