Re: [RFC] Proposal to add edk2-apps repository

["Carsey, Jaben" <jaben.carsey@intel.com>]

I do not think that expanding shellPkg would work since there is no requirement that any of these apps depend on it.  As was stated, MicroPythonPkg does not.

I also do not think that moving ShellPkg makes lots of sense since it is used by many platforms.

-Jaben

> -----Original Message-----
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Ni,
> Ruiyu
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:40 PM
> To: krishnaLee <sssky307@163.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to add edk2-apps repository
> Importance: High
> 
> Krishna,
> The reason there are applications inside MdeModulePkg/Application is that
> the shell protocol was in ShellPkg when the app was developed and
> MdeModulePkg cannot depend on ShellPkg (rule).
> Now since shell protocol is moved to MdePkg, any apps can depend on shell
> protocol. (In fact they wanted to but just wasn't allowed due to reason
> above.)
> 
> I even prefer to move the ShellPkg to the edk2-app repo Mike proposed.
> Instead of enlarge the ShellPkg:)
> 
> I don't prefer edk2-libc unless we have a strategy/plan to make ordinary C
> developer easy by promoting the std-c pkg.
> The other reason I prefer edk2-app is then ShellPkg might be moved to that
> new repo.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
> > krishnaLee
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 9:45 AM
> > To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to add edk2-apps repository
> >
> > Kinney,
> > I always think there may be two kinds of apps:
> > 1,some apps have dependency on uefi_shell(shell-
> lib,efi_shell_protocol,...they
> > usually execute under uefi_shell),I would call them
> "uefi_shell_application";
> > 2,some apps have no dependency on uefi_shell(such as apps in
> > MdeModulePkg/Application),I would call them
> "standard_uefi_application".
> >
> > The "AppPkg / StdLib / StdLibPrivateInternalFiles" packages are usually
> used by
> > uefi_shell_application,I think they can all move to ShellPkg,no need to
> create
> > new package ?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > krishna.
> >
> > At 2018-11-30 08:46:58, "Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Leif,
> > >
> > >I did consider the edk2-libc name.  The port of Python 2.7 is in the
> > >AppPkg as well and it uses libc.
> > >
> > >So the content of this new package is a combination of libc And apps
> > >that use libc.
> > >
> > >I am definitely open to alternate names.  2 options so far:
> > >
> > >* edk2-apps
> > >* edk2-libc
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Mike
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 2:41 PM
> > >> To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > >> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to add edk2-apps repository
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:58:08PM +0000, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> > >> > Hello,
> > >> >
> > >> > I would like to propose the creation of a new repository called
> > >> > edk2-apps.  This repository would initially be used to host the
> > >> > following packages from the edk2 repository:
> > >> >
> > >> > * AppPkg
> > >> > * StdLib
> > >> > * StdLibPrivateInternalFiles
> > >>
> > >> Let me start by saying I 100% back moving these out of the main edk2
> > >> repository.
> > >>
> > >> > These 3 packages provide support for the libc along with
> > >> > applications that depend on libc.  None of the other packages in
> > >> > the edk2 repository use these packages, so these 3 package can be
> > >> > safely moved without any impacts to platform firmware builds.
> > >> > Build configurations that do use libc features can clone the
> > >> > edk2-apps repository and add it to PACKAGES_PATH.
> > >>
> > >> I must confess to never having properly understood the scope of
> > >> AppPkg to begin with.
> > >>
> > >> AppPkg/Applications/Hello does not appear to have any further (real)
> > >> dependency on libc than MdeModulePkg/Application/HelloWorld/, and
> .
> > >>
> > >> And certainly MdeModulePkg/Applications contain plenty of ...
> > >> applications.
> > >>
> > >> So, if the purpose is simply to provide some examples of application
> > >> written to libc rather than UEFI - should this be edk2- libc instead?
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Leif
> > >>
> > >> > The history of these 3 packages would be preserved when importing
> > >> > the content into edk2-apps.  After The import is verified, these 3
> > >> > packages would be deleted from the edk2 repository.
> > >> >
> > >> > This proposal helps reduce the size of the edk2 repository and
> > >> > focuses edk2 repository on packages used to provide UEFI/PI
> > >> > conformant firmware.
> > >> >
> > >> > If there are no concerns with this proposal, I will enter a
> > >> > Tianocore BZs for the two steps.
> > >> >
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> >
> > >> > Mike
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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