From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.3256.1623903346253394825 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 21:15:46 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@bsdio.com header.s=xmission header.b=sKIhHRZJ; spf=none, err=SPF record not found (domain: bsdio.com, ip: 166.70.13.231, mailfrom: rebecca@bsdio.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=simple/simple; d=bsdio.com; s=xmission; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version: Date:Message-ID:From:To:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ISbgTa3I3b7AzJwcj06QaVkMeEI739Um5/GYMlbLBYw=; b=sKIhHRZJk8aVqs6pFT1y1bpCNN /g0U6ydbaAqZe4szBydFIxIwL6AY7iFCeBcncLMHCjoFVlz1Fxu9v7gL4o2Dvy8SSTklZOTreUIFk Co7bpbmQmU4Ix/S7Z0Rf8W25P2U2EXk8+F52KMqU1vg71kW4kjB028e0RtegQVpOpxpk=; Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1ltjRM-002gkk-SC; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:15:40 -0600 Received: from mta4.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.68]) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1ltjRL-000TKn-Uy; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:15:40 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta4.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3852501D7B; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:15:39 -0600 (MDT) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta4.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta4.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta4.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id hMhzNREvvM5b; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:15:39 -0600 (MDT) Received: from photon.int.bsdio.com (c-174-52-16-57.hsd1.ut.comcast.net [174.52.16.57]) by mta4.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 74FA0501D55; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:15:39 -0600 (MDT) To: devel@edk2.groups.io, Laszlo Ersek , Ard Biesheuvel , Jordan Justen From: "Rebecca Cran" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:15:38 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-XM-SPF: eid=1ltjRL-000TKn-Uy;;;mid=;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=166.70.13.68;;;frm=rebecca@bsdio.com;;;spf=none X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa06.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,TooManyTo_001,TooManyTo_002,TooManyTo_003,XMSubLong, XM_B_Unicode autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.3 TooManyTo_001 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 2x (uncommon) * 0.6 TooManyTo_003 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 4x (uncommon) * 0.5 TooManyTo_002 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 3x (uncommon) * 0.0 XM_B_Unicode BODY: Testing for specific types of unicode * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa06 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1] [Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *;devel@edk2.groups.io, Laszlo Ersek , Ard Biesheuvel , Jordan Justen X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 399 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.06 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 15 (3.9%), b_tie_ro: 14 (3.5%), parse: 0.97 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 3.9 (1.0%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.79 (0.2%), tests_pri_-1000: 2.5 (0.6%), tests_pri_-950: 1.25 (0.3%), tests_pri_-900: 1.06 (0.3%), tests_pri_-90: 75 (18.9%), check_bayes: 73 (18.4%), b_tokenize: 6 (1.5%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (1.6%), b_comp_prob: 2.0 (0.5%), b_tok_touch_all: 55 (13.8%), b_finish: 1.10 (0.3%), tests_pri_0: 286 (71.8%), check_dkim_signature: 0.58 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 49 (12.3%), poll_dns_idle: 41 (10.4%), tests_pri_10: 2.1 (0.5%), tests_pri_500: 8 (2.0%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc is broken: OvmfPkg/Sec/SecMain.inf NOT found in DSC file; Is it really a binary module? X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:53:50 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Is OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc still supposed to work after the recent changes in OvmfPkg? I realized it's currently broken. bcran@photon:~/src/uefi/edk2> build -p OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc -a X64 -t GCC5 -b RELEASE Build environment: Linux-5.12.9-1-default-x86_64-with-glibc2.2.5 Build start time: 22:11:28, Jun.16 2021 WORKSPACE        = /home/bcran/src/uefi/edk2 EDK_TOOLS_PATH   = /home/bcran/src/uefi/edk2/BaseTools CONF_PATH        = /home/bcran/src/uefi/edk2/Conf PYTHON_COMMAND   = /usr/bin/python3.8 Processing meta-data .Architecture(s)  = X64 Build target     = RELEASE Toolchain        = GCC5 Active Platform          = /home/bcran/src/uefi/edk2/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc build.py...  : error F001: Module /home/bcran/src/uefi/edk2/OvmfPkg/Sec/SecMain.inf NOT found in DSC file; Is it really a binary module? - Failed - Build end time: 22:11:29, Jun.16 2021 Build total time: 00:00:01 -- Rebecca Cran