Re: [RFC] Plan to delete ShellBinPkg from edk2/master

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

Laszlo,

I think it makes sense to post validated shell binaries
with the edk2-stable tag releases.  GitHub does support
this when a release tag is made.

However, we would need to make it simple for a platform
to use a binary from that location.  We may need some
enhancements to pull in binary artifacts from different
locations to support a platform build that uses one or
more pre-built binaries.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 3:10 AM
> To: Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Bi, Dandan
> <dandan.bi@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Cetola, Stephano <stephano.cetola@intel.com>;
> Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Gao,
> Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; Carsey, Jaben
> <jaben.carsey@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Plan to delete ShellBinPkg
> from edk2/master
> 
> On 04/03/19 04:17, Ni, Ray wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: edk2-devel <edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org>
> On Behalf Of Laszlo
> >> Ersek
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 4:49 PM
> >> To: Bi, Dandan <dandan.bi@intel.com>; edk2-
> devel@lists.01.org
> >> Cc: Cetola, Stephano <stephano.cetola@intel.com>;
> Kinney, Michael D
> >> <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Gao, Liming
> <liming.gao@intel.com>; Carsey,
> >> Jaben <jaben.carsey@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Plan to delete ShellBinPkg
> from edk2/master
> >>
> >> On 04/02/19 07:38, Bi, Dandan wrote:
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> ShellBinPkg is the remaining binary package in Edk2
> repo.  We plan to
> >> delete ShellBinPkg from edk2/master, and keep source
> ShellPkg only in edk2
> >> repo.
> >>> Before the deletion, I will update the existing
> consumers in Edk2 and
> >> Edk2Platforms to use ShellPkg directly.
> >>>
> >>> If you have any concern please raise here before
> mid-April . If there is no
> >> concern, I will create patches for this task after
> mid-April.
> >>>
> >>> Bugzilla for this task:
> >>> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1675
> >>
> >> (adding a few CC's)
> >>
> >> I think we should not remove ShellBinPkg without a
> replacement
> >> *somehwere*.
> >>
> >> A shell binary that is built from a validated edk2
> tree, with a set of library
> >> resolutions and PCD settings that are known to keep
> platform dependencies
> >> *out* of the shell binary, is extremely useful.
> >
> > I understand the concern.
> > Maybe a "Shell.dsc.inc" provided by ShellPkg which
> lists all library resolutions
> > , PCD settings and build options can be included by
> platform DSC to resolve such
> > dependency issue.
> >
> >>
> >> IIRC, Andrew suggested earlier that we should treat
> the shell even as an "OS",
> >> with better compatibility standards than we
> currently maintain.
> >>
> >> I think we should only remove ShellBinPkg if we
> permanently offer a
> >> separate download location instead, and we rebuild
> the shell binary from
> >> "ShellPkg/ShellPkg.dsc" at every stable tag.
> >
> > I do not quite understand. All other modules in edk2
> repo are source-included by
> > OvmfPkg and daily commits directly generates new
> binaries for OvmfPkg.
> > I do not think we should have a different "binary-
> generation" model for
> > shell.
> 
> The standalone shell binary would not be offered for
> OVMF, but for all
> possible UEFI platforms (physical and virtual alike).
> 
> People frequently turn to the UEFI shell for debugging
> UEFI issues on
> their physical machines. Such users are generally not
> interested in
> building the shell from source, just booting it as
> easily as possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> Laszlo
> 
> 
> >> In that case, removing ShellBinPkg would indeed
> improve the edk2 tree, in
> >> my opinion.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Laszlo
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> edk2-devel mailing list
> >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel