Re: [PATCH] add top-level .gitattributes file, dealing with .depex

["Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>]

Tim:
  FDF syntax doesn't support .ffs. 

Thanks
Liming
> -----Original Message-----
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
> Tim Lewis
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 1:03 AM
> To: Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>;
> Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Andrew Fish
> <afish@apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] add top-level .gitattributes file, dealing
> with .depex
> 
> Jordan --
> 
> As a company that delivers a lot of mixed binary/source builds, we
> see .depex as actually important for ease of maintenance. The .fdf syntax
> can work, as you mention, but it is actually requires an extra step for those of
> us maintaining binary modules. Why? Because .depex is derived from the .inf
> of the module *and* the .infs of all library instances which the module is
> linked against. While this can be tracked down using a build report, it is
> problematic and likely to introduce hard to track bugs. Since .depex is a
> normal product of the source build process, it is convenient.
> 
> As for the open-source, I would only note that it is used only in the exact
> same cases where the module itself is delivered as a binary. In fact, it could
> be checked in to the tree as a complete FFS file (no .efi at all).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jordan Justen [mailto:jordan.l.justen@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 12:03 AM
> To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm
> <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Tim Lewis <tim.lewis@insyde.com>; Kinney,
> Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Andrew Fish
> <afish@apple.com>
> Subject: RE: [edk2] [PATCH] add top-level .gitattributes file, dealing
> with .depex
> 
> On 2016-07-31 16:52:23, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> > Jordan,
> >
> > UEFI Drivers distributed as binaries do not need depex sections.
> >
> > PI modules distributed as binaries do require a .depex binary.
> >
> 
> They may require a depex, but, as mentioned below, they can also add it
> directly in the .fdf. As it stands, apparently we have 1 .depex file in the tree,
> and it is unused.
> 
> Aside from this, under what conditions would we take such binaries into the
> EDK II tree? Today we have the ShellPkg and FatPkg binaries in the EDK II tree,
> but we recently discussed removing even those.
> 
> For an open source project, I think it is best to not have pre-built binaries,
> unless there is some very compelling reason. Previously there was some
> license funniness on FatPkg, but now that is gone. If it took an hour to build
> FatPkg, then that might also be something to discuss. :)
> 
> I don't think adding the .gitattributes is really a problem, aside from the fact
> that it implies that we might actually have a reason to add a .depex file to the
> source tree.
> 
> -Jordan
> 
> > So I would recommend .depex binary files be treated the same as binary
> > .efi files by GIT.  So it does sound like we need some minor updates
> > to GIT attributes.
> >
> > If we have an example of a binary module that is providing more binary
> > leaf sections than are actually required and/or used, then yes, the
> > binary module should be cleaned up to remove the unused content.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Justen, Jordan L
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 3:58 PM
> > > To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Tim Lewis
> > > <tim.lewis@insyde.com>
> > > Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> > > <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; edk2-devel@ml01.01.org
> > > <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>; Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] add top-level .gitattributes file,
> > > dealing with .depex
> > >
> > > On 2016-07-30 11:33:43, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > > > Hi Tim,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the warning, and investigation.
> > > >
> > > > Does this mean that you think we should ban the inclusion of
> > > > .depex files in EDK2, including future platform trees?
> > >
> > > I don't know about banning it, but at least we could wait for
> > > someone to make a reasonable argument why they are needed.
> > >
> > > Even for binary only modules, it looks like the fdf method outlined
> > > below is preferable to a pre-built .depex.
> > >
> > > If (at a future point) the reason for using a .depex is to support a
> > > binary only module in a supposedly open platform under EDK II, then
> > > I guess we can decide if that is a good idea at that point.
> > >
> > > Should we delete this one unused .depex from the tree?
> > >
> > > -Jordan
> > >
> > > > (If not, this patch is
> > > > still needed for git to work predictably with these files.)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Leif
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:12:49PM +0000, Tim Lewis wrote:
> > > > > It appears that this file is not actually used. It is only
> > > > > referenced in the [Rule.Common.UEFI_DRIVER.NATIVE_BINARY] rule
> > > > > in PlatformPkg.fdf. A little further research shows that an
> > > > > alternate method was used for the actual GOP binary (see below).
> > > > > A grep of the entire tree shows that no one uses this rule
> > > > > NATIVE_BINARY. So it looks like it can just be cut out.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, the downside of the method used for the binary version of
> > > > > the GOP driver, is that those drivers cannot use PCDs, since the
> > > > > PCD database is created based on references in the .inf. GOP
> > > > > works because it is pure UEFI and (therefore) doesn't use PCDs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tim
> > > > >
> > > > > FILE DRIVER = FF0C8745-3270-4439-B74F-3E45F8C77064 {
> > > > >   SECTION DXE_DEPEX_EXP = {gPlatformGOPPolicyGuid}
> > > > >   SECTION PE32 =
> > >
> Vlv2MiscBinariesPkg/GOP/7.2.1011/RELEASE_VS2008x86/$(DXE_ARCHITECT
> UR
> > > E)/IntelGopDriver.e
> > > fi
> > > > >   SECTION UI = "IntelGopDriver"
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On
> > > > > Behalf Of Leif
> > > Lindholm
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:45 AM
> > > > > To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: michael.d.kinney@intel.com; Jordan Justen
> > > > > <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; edk2-
> > > devel@ml01.01.org; Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] add top-level .gitattributes file,
> > > > > dealing with .depex
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 05:03:13PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > > > > > On 07/07/16 16:24, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > > > > > > Git tends to see .depex files as text, causing hideous
> > > > > > > patches being generated (and breaking PatchCheck.py).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Add a .gitattributes file instructing git to treat them as binary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  .gitattributes | 1 +
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)  create mode 100644
> > > > > > > .gitattributes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode
> > > > > > > 100644 index 0000000..2d8a45b
> > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > +++ b/.gitattributes
> > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> > > > > > > +*.depex binary
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What generates .depex files? I've never seen any.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, unless you add .depex files with "git add" to the set of
> > > > > > tracked files, no patches / diffs should cover them. What am I
> > > > > > missing? :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ... Hm, after
> > > > > >
> > > > > > $ find . -iname "*.depex"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see .depex files in Build/ (which should be ignored
> > > > > > altogether), and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ./Vlv2TbltDevicePkg/IntelGopDepex/IntelGopDriver.depex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why does that file exist in the tree? Let me see... git log
> > > > > > says nothing relevant
> > > (the file dates back to commit 3cbfba02fef9, "Upload BSD-licensed
> > > Vlv2TbltDevicePkg and Vlv2DeviceRefCodePkg to").
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Grepping the tree for the filename itself leads to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vlv2TbltDevicePkg/PlatformPkg.fdf:    DXE_DEPEX DXE_DEPEX
> Optional
> > >
> $(WORKSPACE)/$(PLATFORM_PACKAGE)/IntelGopDepex/IntelGopDriver.de
> pex
> > > > > > Vlv2TbltDevicePkg/PlatformPkgGcc.fdf:    DXE_DEPEX DXE_DEPEX
> Optional
> > >
> $(WORKSPACE)/$(PLATFORM_PACKAGE)/IntelGopDepex/IntelGopDriver.de
> pex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do these rules exist to override the DEPEX sections of
> > > > > > binary-only modules? If
> > > so: that's horrible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, given that edk2 contains at least one .depex file, and
> > > > > > your patch is
> > > correct according to <https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-
> Git-Attributes>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > I had hoped for comments from someone else on cc, since we don't
> > > > > have any
> > > Maintainers.txt entry for the top level directory :)
> > > > >
> > > > > But if I don't hear anything before Monday, I'll push it then.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Leif
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > edk2-devel mailing list
> > > > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > > > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel