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

["Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>]

Jordan,

UEFI Drivers distributed as binaries do not need depex sections.

PI modules distributed as binaries do require a .depex binary.

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_ARCHITECTURE)/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.depex
> > > > Vlv2TbltDevicePkg/PlatformPkgGcc.fdf:    DXE_DEPEX DXE_DEPEX Optional
> $(WORKSPACE)/$(PLATFORM_PACKAGE)/IntelGopDepex/IntelGopDriver.depex
> > > >
> > > > 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