From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 209.132.183.28, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by groups.io with SMTP; Mon, 13 May 2019 03:46:07 -0700 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4B6F307D91E; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:46:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-120-233.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.233]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107266B8DE; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:46:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] RFC for Edk2-Library To: "Kinney, Michael D" , "devel@edk2.groups.io" , "sean.brogan@microsoft.com" References: <24030.1557264917803034398@groups.io> <46700279-e217-0a45-8637-9c24cb5cc4eb@redhat.com> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 12:46:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.48]); Mon, 13 May 2019 10:46:06 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/10/19 02:01, Kinney, Michael D wrote: > Laszlo, > > 1) We also use OpenSSL command line tool to locally sign > capsules and recovery images for local testing. So both > tool dependency and source dependency apply to the OpenSSL > content. I haven't used the tools yet that you refer to, so I'm unsure how exactly they invoke the "openssl" utility. If they just rely on the PATH environment variable, then what they invoke comes from the system-wide openssl package. > > 2) If a dev submits a PR, and there are many review comments > that require code changes, then those code changes are > added to that PR until all feedback is addressed. I don't understand how. Let's say the pull request refers to a branch with three commits, and the majority of the review comments request updates for patch #2 (i.e., in the middle). How can the submitter "add changes to the PR"? It is patch #2 that needs to be reworked, which will require rebases, and so the hash of the HEAD commit of the topic branch (patch #3) will change as well. > At that > point, if the change is something that should be in a single > commit, then doing a squash merge with a cleaned up commit > message would be appropriate. I don't understand -- we modify only patch #2, yes, to address review comments, but why does that justify squashing #1 through #3 into a single commit? > And the history of all the > review feedback preserved in the PR. That's good (but it could be better -- see the lacking email integration. Anyway this is not strictly tied to my concern with squash-on-merge). > > If we create a 2nd PR with the cleaned up content, then the > connection to the 1st PR feedback may be lost. I agree this > matches what we do in email reviews to create a V2 patch series. > The V1 and V2 threads are in the email archive. Indeed. And the blurb for both threads reference the bugzilla, and the bugzilla has (if the submitter is careful) comments linking the v1 and v2 threads from the email archive. > I wonder if > there is a way to link a 2nd PR to the 1st PR and guarantee > that both PRs are preserved? This would also allow the 2nd > cleaned up PR to contain a series, and if there was a way to > make the squash merge optional, then the developer can choose > the way the patches are committed. This sounds great! I think both PRs can reference the bugzilla ticket, and the bugzilla ticket can reference both PRs too (as comments). The first PR can be rejected & closed when the second one is submitted. > Just a few ideas to explore...Perhaps Sean can provide some > additional ideas to manage complex changes in PRs. Thanks! Laszlo > > Best regards, > > Mike > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:56 PM >> To: Kinney, Michael D ; >> devel@edk2.groups.io; sean.brogan@microsoft.com >> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] RFC for Edk2-Library >> >> On 05/09/19 20:06, Kinney, Michael D wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> It is difficult to tell if the repo name edk2-library >> is for firmware >>> or tools, so I recommend we work on a name that clearly >> identifies >>> that this repo is related to tools. >> >> Good idea. >> >>> For the pip dependencies, is the concern that a >> platform that depends >>> on these tools will not be buildable without running a >> "pip install" >>> command that pulls content from the network? >> >> Almost. Not exactly. >> >> First, the concern is not specific to any given platform. >> My >> understanding is that the extraction would target, in the >> longer term, >> general BaseTools functionality. That would impact all >> platforms that >> consume & build against edk2. >> >> Second, it's not the network access that's concerning per >> se. It's the >> compatibility / interoperation with any given Linux >> distribution's own >> (native) package management system. Such a package >> management system is >> generally not used on Windows, therefore Windows users >> are accustomed to >> installing software packages from a boatload of vendors. >> This is not the >> case on Linux distros -- your distro vendor offers a >> curated set of >> packages, such that everything interoperates with >> everything (ideally), >> there are no file conflicts, version dependencies are >> handled >> automatically (e.g. if you install a high-level package, >> its >> dependencies are pulled in automatically), and so on. >> >> Clearly the distro vendor does not *author* all this >> software (although >> they are strongly encouraged to contribute to the >> upstream software >> projects they package and ship). The distro vendor is >> responsible for >> the integration of all these packages into a consistent >> OS, into >> consistent feature sets, and so on. >> >> "pip" and similar tools are generally unfit for this >> approach, because >> they implement a parallel package management system, to >> my >> understanding. If they are carefully used in a user's >> home directory, >> they might work. If packages were installed with "pip" >> system-wide, they >> would almost certainly break (conflict with) the distro- >> provided >> packages. >> >> Therefore, when users would like to get a new piece of >> software >> packaged, or an existent package refreshed (to a more >> recent upstream >> version), they file a feature requst with their distro >> vendor (unless >> the distro vendor already tracks the upstream project >> closely and >> performs periodic rebases anyway). Then the distro vendor >> ships a new >> (or refreshed) package, again nicely integrated with the >> rest of the >> system. >> >>> We already have to pull content to get the sources and >> potentially >>> other dependent tools (NASM, iASL, openssl). >> >> Yes, these are good examples to demonstrate the >> difference. Consider >> NASM. If a Windows user would like to install NASM, they >> google "NASM >> for Windows", then go to: >> >> https://www.nasm.us/pub/nasm/releasebuilds/2.14.02/win64/ >> >> download the ZIP file or EXE file, and install it. >> >> In comparison, a Fedora user runs >> >> dnf install nasm >> >> and they get the package from the Fedora package >> repository. A Debian >> user would run >> >> apt-get install nasm >> >> and they would get the package (which would be entirely >> independent of >> Fedora's) from the Debian package repository. >> >> The various *BSDs would run a variant of >> >> pkg_add nasm >> >> I believe. >> >> The same applies to iASL. >> >> >> OpenSSL is a special case. It is different from NASM and >> iASL. NASM and >> iASL are native (hosted) applications, so any Linux >> distro can easily >> build them (for itself), and the binaries can be shipped >> to users, ready >> to run. But for the purposes of edk2, OpenSSL is not >> needed as a native >> (hosted) utility, like NASM and iASL -- it is needed as a >> *cross-built* >> static library, targeting the firmware architecture (not >> the host >> architecture). Unfortunately, OpenSSL (the upstream >> project) does not >> fully support this use case yet, therefore Linux distros >> cannot just >> cross-compile OpenSSL for edk2, and offer static library >> packages. This >> is why upstream edk2 consumes OpenSSL through a git >> submodule, in source >> form. >> >> *However*: conceptually, there is no difference. In >> Fedora and RHEL, we >> don't build OVMF against upstream OpenSSL. We build it >> against the >> downstream OpenSSL source code. So ultimately there is no >> difference in >> the distro vendor's approach -- the sources and the >> binaries come from >> the distro vendor. >> >> >> So what follows from this? It means that, for using >> BaseTools on a Linux >> distro, users will have to install some extra Python >> packages, in >> addition to NASM and iASL, from their vendor's >> repository. In other >> words, the "edk2-library" (or "edk2-tools") project >> should do upstream >> releases, so that Linux distros can package them in their >> native package >> systems. And some collaboration between upstream and >> downstreams is >> expected for this. (Exactly as it occurs with the iASL >> and NASM upstream >> projects.) >> >>> Can we limit the initial scope to tools that layer on >> top of edk2, and >>> a different future RFC would be required if there is a >> proposal for >>> the edk2 repo to depend on another repo? >> >> Yes, that would be very nice. >> >>> If we accept this limited scope, are there still >> concerns about >>> initially using squash commits for changes to these >> tools. >> >> Yes, I still have the same concern -- although it's a >> milder concern, >> dependent on how long squash merges are tolerated. >> >> Assume that a second, separate RFC gets posted down the >> road, let's say >> a year in, which proposes to replace the in-line >> component FooBar of >> BaseTools, with the external project "edk2-library" (or >> "edk2-tools"). >> At that point, the git history accrued thus far, in edk2- >> tools, would >> suddenly be inherited by all BaseTools users. And that >> history wouldn't >> be really helpful. >> >> For an example, we need not look past the edk2 repository >> itself. Let's >> say I'd like to learn about the implementation history of >> the >> HandleProtocol() boot service, in edk2. So I run: >> >> $ git blame master -- MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/Handle.c >> >> and I look up the CoreHandleProtocol() function, and find >> this: >> >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 931) >> EFI_STATUS >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 932) EFIAPI >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 933) >> CoreHandleProtocol ( >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 934) IN >> EFI_HANDLE UserHandle, >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 935) IN >> EFI_GUID *Protocol, >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 936) OUT >> VOID **Interface >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 937) ) >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 938) { >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 939) >> return CoreOpenProtocol ( >>> 022c6d45ef786 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/Handle.c >> (qhuang8 2008-07-24 02:54:45 +0000 940) >> UserHandle, >>> 022c6d45ef786 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/Handle.c >> (qhuang8 2008-07-24 02:54:45 +0000 941) >> Protocol, >>> 022c6d45ef786 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/Handle.c >> (qhuang8 2008-07-24 02:54:45 +0000 942) >> Interface, >>> 022c6d45ef786 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/Handle.c >> (qhuang8 2008-07-24 02:54:45 +0000 943) >> gDxeCoreImageHandle, >>> 022c6d45ef786 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/Handle.c >> (qhuang8 2008-07-24 02:54:45 +0000 944) >> NULL, >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 945) >> EFI_OPEN_PROTOCOL_BY_HANDLE_PROTOCOL >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 946) >> ); >>> 28a00297189c3 MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/handle.c >> (yshang1 2007-07-04 10:51:54 +0000 947) } >> >> Interesting, it seems like the function was originally >> added in commit >> 28a00297189c3, and then the argument list was modified in >> commit >> 022c6d45ef786, a year later. So let's check out the >> rationale for that >> argument list update: >> >> $ git show --color 022c6d45ef786 >> >> Well... The commit message says, "Code Scrub for Dxe >> Core". That's all. >> We also learn it comes from SVN revision 5560. And the >> diffstat for the >> patch is: >> >>> 38 files changed, 2499 insertions(+), 2504 deletions(- >> ) >> >> It is not overly helpful. >> >> Clearly, CoreHandleProtocol() is a super-robust, super- >> mature function, >> so we don't really care for its development history >> today. >> >> I believe the same would not apply to the "edk2-library" >> (or >> "edk2-tools") project. When it replaced the in-line >> component FooBar of >> BaseTools, it's plausible it would be suddenly exposed to >> a larger >> userbase. New issues would be encountered, and people >> might want to look >> at the git history -- if for nothing else, then rationale >> (commit >> messages) on small parts of the code. >> >> >> I can also name more recent examples. I'm not a frequent >> BaseTools >> contributor, but it has happened occasionally. (I've got >> 41 patches in >> the edk2 git history that touched BaseTools/, as of >> commit >> 0a506fc7ab8b.) >> >> * For >> , I >> pushed >> 5+1 patches: >> >> 67983484a443 BaseTools/footer.makefile: expand >> BUILD_CFLAGS last for C files too >> 03252ae287c4 BaseTools/header.makefile: remove "-c" >> from BUILD_CFLAGS >> b8a661702643 BaseTools/Source/C: split "-O2" to >> BUILD_OPTFLAGS >> b0ca5dae78ff BaseTools/Source/C: take EXTRA_OPTFLAGS >> from the caller >> 81502cee20ac BaseTools/Source/C: take EXTRA_LDFLAGS >> from the caller >> + >> aa4e0df1f0c7 BaseTools/VfrCompile: honor >> EXTRA_LDFLAGS >> >> * For >> , I >> pushed 26 >> patches: >> >> 8ff122119941 EmulatorPkg: require GCC48 or later >> 8d7cdfae8cb8 OvmfPkg: require GCC48 or later >> fd158437dcce Vlv2TbltDevicePkg: assume GCC48 or later >> 7a9dbf2c94d1 BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template: drop >> ARM/AARCH support from GCC46/GCC47 >> 48e64498c961 BaseTools/tools_def.template: fix up LF- >> only line terminator >> 7381a6627a66 BaseTools/tools_def.template: strip >> trailing whitespace >> 9bbf156faaad BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove >> GCC48_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON dead-end >> 3c5613c5932c BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove >> GCC47 leaf definitions >> fc87b8d7f411 BaseTools/tools_def.template: propagate >> loss of GCC47 references >> 91a67e0f111e BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove >> GCC47 documentation >> 0f234fb8a662 BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove >> GCC46 leaf definitions >> 83a8f313884a BaseTools/tools_def.template: propagate >> loss of GCC46 references >> be359fa7ceec BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove >> GCC46 documentation >> 1458af0cbce0 BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove >> GCC45 leaf definitions >> 024576896d42 BaseTools/tools_def.template: propagate >> loss of GCC45 references >> 3e77d20f5cb3 BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove >> GCC45 documentation >> e046dc60fb89 BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove >> GCC44 leaf definitions >> 38c570efede0 BaseTools/tools_def.template: propagate >> loss of GCC44 references >> 383d29096846 BaseTools/tools_def.template: rename >> GCC44_ALL_CC_FLAGS to GCC48_ALL_CC_FLAGS >> 0db91daf5228 BaseTools/tools_def.template: eliminate >> GCC44_IA32_X64_DLINK_FLAGS >> 84d21abf4e36 BaseTools/tools_def.template: rename >> GCC44_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON to >> GCC48_IA32_X64_DLINK_COMMON >> 5c6ccd53244b BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove >> comment about GCC44 + LzmaF86Compress >> 3bc65326d6ed BaseTools/tools_def.template: remove >> GCC44 documentation >> f7282023e758 ArmPkg/ArmSoftFloatLib: drop build flags >> specific to GCC46/GCC47 >> 300b8c5f150c CryptoPkg/BaseCryptLib: drop build flags >> specific to GCC44 >> 7423ba9d499b Revert "MdePkg: avoid >> __builtin_unreachable() on GCC v4.4" >> >> (Note, from this list, 7a9dbf2c94d1 was authored by >> Ard, I just >> included it at the right spot.) >> >> All of these patch series were carefully structured, and >> carefully >> documented (in the commit messages). I would have been >> devastated, had >> they been squashed. >> >> (And it would have been questionable to squash Ard's >> patch with patches >> authored by me.) >> >> >>> Is there a way for GitHub to support both squash >> commits for some PRs >>> and preserve a patch series for other PRs? >> >> I don't know. >> >> But honestly, what is the purpose of squash merges? Don't >> we expect >> *all* contributions in well structured patch series? >> >> If review discovers an issue with the structure of the >> series (for >> example, not buildable in the middle, or the steps are >> not logical in >> that order, or some patches do too many things at once >> and should be >> split up, or a patch in the middle has a typo), the fixes >> shouldn't be >> just heaped on top. The submitter should restructure >> (rebase) the >> series, and submit the reworked series on a new topic >> branch / pull >> request. >> >> Isn't this the contribution pattern we'd like to see in >> all >> sub-projects, where we (the TianoCore community) have >> reviewer / >> maintainer responsibilities? >> >> Thanks, >> Laszlo >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Mike >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: devel@edk2.groups.io >> [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] >>>> On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 2:56 AM >>>> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; sean.brogan@microsoft.com >>>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] RFC for Edk2-Library >>>> >>>> On 05/07/19 23:35, Sean via Groups.Io wrote: >>>>> RFC Edk2-Library creation >>>>> >>>>> Create a new tianocore owned repository to host a >>>> python library >>>>> package in support of UEFI development. This package >>>> will allow easy >>>>> sharing of python library code to facilitate reuse. >>>> Inclusion of this >>>>> package and dependency management should be managed >>>> using Pip/Pypi. To >>>>> start this is a supplemental package and is not >>>> required to be used >>>>> for edk2 builds. >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>>>> Examples of content here >>>>> >>>>> * Edk2 file type parsing >>>>> * UEFI structure encode/decode in python >>>>> * Packaging tools (Capsules generation, signing, INF >>>> gen, Cat gen) >>>>> * TPM support code >>>>> * Potentially move content from >>>> basetools/source/python/common/* >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> >>>>> * No command line tools/interface >>>>> >>>>> Maintainers >>>>> >>>>> * Sean Brogan >>>>> * Bret Barkelew >>>>> * Placeholder for existing maintainer from the >>>> basetools >>>>> >>>>> License >>>>> >>>>> * BSD + Patent (edk2 aligned) >>>>> >>>>> Contribution process and issue tracking >>>>> >>>>> * Follow Github PR process for contributions and >> issue >>>> tracking >>>>> * Contributor forks repo in github >>>>> * Contributor creates branch for work >>>>> * Contributor updates release notes to indicate >> change >>>> (if necessary) >>>>> * Contributor submits PR to master branch of >>>> tianocore/Edk2-Library >>>>> repo >>>>> * Review feedback is given in PR >>>>> * Python Tests are run on the repo (new contributions >>>> need unit tests) >>>>> * Python Style (flake8) must pass >>>>> * All review feedback must be completed, maintainers >>>> approved, and >>>>> tests run successfully before PR is *squash merged* >>>> into master >>>> >>>> The sentences >>>> >>>> [1] "To start this is a supplemental package and is >> not >>>> required to be >>>> used for edk2 builds." >>>> >>>> [2] "Potentially move content from >>>> basetools/source/python/common/*" >>>> >>>> foreshadow that such a code movement might happen down >>>> the road, and the >>>> external package could become a requirement for >> building >>>> edk2. >>>> >>>> That step would mean the following: >>>> >>>> (a) Edk2 would not remain buildable from a single >>>> command >>>> >>>> git clone --recurse-submodules >>>> >>>> Building edk2 would require GNU/Linux users to >> start >>>> tracking >>>> packages with "pip", which is independent of any >>>> given distro's own >>>> package management, and may cause conflicts if not >>>> used carefully: >>>> >>>> >>>> >> https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/languages/pytho >>>> n/pypi-installation.html >>>> >>>> This requirement on "pip" would only go away once >>>> the external >>>> python dependencies were packaged for at least the >>>> larger GNU/Linux >>>> distros. >>>> >>>> (b) Edk2 users running into build problems related to >>>> the external >>>> python dependencies would have to contribute >> through >>>> a github-only >>>> workflow. That's not a deal-breaker per se -- if >> we >>>> want to >>>> contribute to other edk2 dependencies, such as >>>> OpenSSL or nasm, we >>>> also have to conform to their specific development >>>> models, clearly. >>>> >>>> However, "squash merge" is a catastrophically bad >>>> development model, >>>> and I'd object to introducing a new edk2 build >>>> dependency that >>>> followed that model. >>>> >>>> (There are other issues with the GitHub.com >>>> development workflow, as >>>> discussed elsewhere, but "squash merge" takes the >>>> cake.) >>>> >>>> Problem (a) would be solvable in the long term >> (through >>>> collaboration >>>> with distro maintainers, i.e. downstream packaging), >> but >>>> problem (b) >>>> would not be. Thus I'm fine with the proposal, in its >>>> current form, only >>>> if the new package is 100% an addition on top of edk2, >>>> even in the long >>>> term, and not in any part intended as a future >>>> replacement for current >>>> edk2 functionality. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Laszlo >>>> >>>> >>> >