From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp26.services.sfr.fr (smtp26.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.202]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.12379.1675337375846543350 for ; Thu, 02 Feb 2023 03:29:36 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="no key for verify" header.i=@polynum.com header.s=202006 header.b=cCQ2RJOx; spf=pass (domain: sfr.fr, ip: 93.17.128.202, mailfrom: thierry.laronde@sfr.fr) X-mail-filterd: {"version":"1.6.0","queueID":"4P6xQP6xY4z1LQNN9","contextId": "1599b1b1-06f3-48ca-a7b9-294b626298b4"} Received: from cauchy.polynum.local (20.204.0.93.rev.sfr.net [93.0.204.20]) by msfrf2621.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4P6xQP6xY4z1LQNN9; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:29:33 +0100 (CET) X-mail-filterd: {"version":"1.6.0","queueID":"4P6xQP4C4bz1LQKdR","contextId": "e6801ccb-a7e2-44c6-acb5-3c654a599e45"} X-sfr-mailing: LEGIT X-sfr-spamrating: 36 X-sfr-spam: not-spam DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=polynum.com; s=202006; t=1675337373; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject; bh=7N7PXmyq2/7kp50/gNzlZmvCD2+0B+1pJ 9aIiNT4iig=; b=cCQ2RJOxSgV7nZxa6eXXRD9NceGP1RdVkNfvt7NWQGYqWWV0G+fkQlBhNNik6 yQTQVtIDlUysVAV1k2VyHuglbdPGO7jQYJfEYgrnCVJR/9Qi+EPfmpaqptW9LJbFs2xRWf/97Mfi +gw/18/JgRUkdkh8vGHCRAs3859fQQKU5KhM0G20DkKYcbbjAhHeCYn6xxruOpUHI8EZ9j0MwJhD RlqivzydTVxB7/hf+oVKA2bBo0R6atVrjzRb02NvHWPNDJQJ4KX7hPQ/ATO5zqqKSYPswpzDkeBD ckabgM/YWnKxgfsOTDN3ls7nsXWQr6eB2O4se9nu4mw9MZMd/u39g== Received: from cauchy.polynum.local (20.204.0.93.rev.sfr.net [93.0.204.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: thierry.laronde@sfr.fr) by msfrf2621.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTPSA id 4P6xQP4C4bz1LQKdR; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:29:33 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: sfr.fr; auth=pass (LOGIN) smtp.auth=thierry.laronde@sfr.fr Received: from cauchy.polynum.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cauchy.polynum.local (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 312BTW6H005503; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:29:32 +0100 (CET) Received: (from tlaronde@localhost) by cauchy.polynum.local (8.15.2/8.14.9/Submit) id 312BTWM5005765; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:29:32 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: cauchy.polynum.local: tlaronde set sender to thierry.laronde@sfr.fr using -f Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 12:29:32 +0100 From: "tlaronde@polynum.com" To: devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: Andrew Fish , Leif Lindholm , Michael D Kinney Subject: edk2setup.sh shortcomings Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline edk2setup.sh has shortcomings. To list some: - The functions return a status but it is not tested; hence the script goes to the end with a final "return $?" that simply returns the status of the last command that is "unset" which always successfully unsets, even a not set variable. Hence a script can not catch a failure by testing the end status that is always 0; - If WORKSPACE is set, --reconfig does nothing; - If EDK_TOOLS_PATH and PACKAGES_PATH are set, even to incorrect values, the script succeeds even if BaseTools/ is not found anywhere; - The comments are obsolete (1): bash(1) is required because the syntax is not POSIX.2 sh(1) compliant and because some Makefile recipes have "bash'isms" (indeed, a GMAKE variable should be exported with a definition of "/path/to/gnu/make SHELL=/path/to/bash" and a canonical call should be "$GMAKE ..."); - The comments are obsolete (2): CYGWIN is not treated in anyway specifically and, on the contrary, the regexp translation of ':' in spaces for PACKAGES_PATH would be sure to create a mess with a MS Windows like path; - The settings have obviously evolved and the help message does not list all the variables that can be set and that do modify the way the setting is done; - Some commands (notably whereis(1)) are not standard utilities, not to be found on all Unix like systems and, even if found, have greatly diverging behaviors. What is the preferred procedure? Should I file BZ to list all the problems so that someone authorized may address them? Or can I propose a patch to address these (keeping it backward compatible with a present correct use) with a reasonable hope that, as an exception that will not become a rule, it will not be ignored? Best, -- Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ http://kertex.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C