Menu
▾
▴
Re: [edk2-buildtools] [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to retire edk2-buildtools sub-project
|
From: Andrew F. <af...@ap...> - 2014-07-14 21:42:00
|
On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Kinney, Michael D <mic...@in...> wrote: > Andrew, > > The proposal here to have a sub-project for tool binaries is not limited to windows. We proposed a directory structure for the tool binaries that can support any number of operating systems. For operating systems where pulling binaries or build binaries is an option, we need to make it easy for each developer to make that choice. That is why I proposed using the SVN extern with the option to opt-out of the externs to avoid pulling the pre-built binaries. If we move that option into edksetp.*, then I am concerned that we will need to add an extra parameter to edksetup.* to pull or build from sources. I do not think we can auto-detect the developers intent here. > Mike, Sorry I did not realized more binaries would be included? Seems even more reason to only, optionally pull the ones you want… How is the BaseTools directory going to change to support this? Linux and OS X point to https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2/BaseTools/BinWrappers/PosixLike/. The scripts that wrap binaries all point to the same place ($EDK_TOOLS_PATH/Source/C/bin/$TOOL_BASENAME)? https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2/BaseTools/BinWrappers/PosixLike/GenFv. So basically today you can’t support multiple binary tools. Are you saying you are going to copy extra tools into the Bin directory? https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2/BaseTools/Bin/ If you look the current Bin directory for CYTGWIN you will see it is pointing to the common tools build output location. So it seems the tools build need a better concept of where to install the tools? I still like script building the tools, or copying them from source control as part of the install. > For your question about the “previous plan”. Are you referring to how things work today? If you build BaseTools from sources under windows today, it will show file differences for the generated binaries. > I guess the current way, and the svn external. If you don’t pull the external I guess it is un-versioned. Thanks, Andrew Fish > Thanks, > > Mike > > From: Andrew Fish [mailto:af...@ap...] > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 12:21 PM > To: Kinney, Michael D > Cc: edk...@li...; edk...@li... > Subject: Re: [edk2-buildtools] [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to retire edk2-buildtools sub-project > > > On Jul 13, 2014, at 9:41 PM, Kinney, Michael D <mic...@in...> wrote: > > > Andrew, > > The concept of pulling the binaries from svn if they are not present is a good option to consider. Maybe edksetup.bat pulls latest version of edk2-toolsbinaries sub-project if binaries are not present. This would require the command line version of svn to be installed and in the path for that to work. I am not sure if all SVN clients include command line utility or not. I will have to check. This is almost identical in behavior to proposed SVN extern. It just defers the pull of the binaries. > > I need to double check, but I believe the behavior when building tools would be as follows: > 1) If you use default (pull binaries) and build the tools, then yes, SVN will show file differences. > > Well for *.bat options make sense. For *.sh if you are not on Windows no point in pulling the binaries, and it is probably safe to kick off a build of the tools. I think the script (or the one it calls) already detects Cygwin vs. Linux vs. OS X, so it should not be that hard to do. > > > 2) If you opt-out of binaries, then the binaries will be generated in a directory that is not under source control, so no file differences will be shown. > > > But what happens with the previous plan. It seems like if you build binaries you would get svn status notifications for all the binaries. > > > Best regards, > > Mike > > From: Andrew Fish [mailto:af...@ap...] > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 5:19 PM > To: edk...@li... > Cc: edk...@li... > Subject: Re: [edk2-buildtools] [edk2] [RFC] Proposal to retire edk2-buildtools sub-project > > > On Jul 10, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Kinney, Michael D <mic...@in...> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > I am looking for comments on a proposal on how EDK II BaseTools is maintained. The goal is to move all tool related development activities to the EDK II BaseTools. This is to address community feedback that there are long delays between changes made to the edk2-buildtools sub-project and the changes being propagated to EDK II BaseTools. There has also been feedback that some developers do not want the overhead of pulling Win32 binaries when they are not required. I am interested in your feedback (positive or negative) on this proposal and if you think steps should be added or removed or modified. > > I would appreciate feedback by 7/18/2014. Please let us know if you need more time to evaluate this proposal. > > Proposed steps: > =============== > 1) Create new sub-project for BaseTools binaries > a. SVN Link: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2-toolbinaries/code/trunk/ > b. Status: Done. > 2) Intel to provide build server for BaseTools Win32 binaries > a. SVN Link: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2-toolbinaries/code/trunk/Win32/ > b. Build Frequency: Once per day, but only if there are source changes since last build. > c. Build Time: 3 AM PDT > d. Build server to send email with build log when build is performed. > e. Build server send email that no build was required if no source changes since last build. > f. Status: In progress. Need a few more validation steps. > 3) Delete Win32 binaries from EDK II BaseTools and replace with an SVN extern. > a. Default will continue to pull Win32 binaries > b. Developers that do not want Win32 binaries can opt-out by ignoring externs. > c. Date: TBD. Goal is immediately after build server is stable. > > Mike, > > Given this complexity why don’t we just make edksetup.bat/edksetup.sh a little smarter. If edk2setup.* does not see the binaries it builds the tools. > > I guess on Windows there is a concern about having to install Python (I’m not sure if the Python Freeze is required if you have Python). So you could detect the tools where not installed, and pull down tool binaries via svn. You could have a file that con tainted the correct version of svn to pull for the tools. > > I like this as: > 1) Checking in binaries is evil, and not allowed in some production environments, so folks end up solving this problem anyway. > 2) It make the instructions for using the edk2setup.sh path easier. > > Thanks, > > Andrew Fish > > PS What happens to the svn external if some one builds tools locally? Does it show up as a modified file in svn? > > > > > 4) Merge sources from Edk2-buildtools to EDK II BaseTools > a. Date: TBD. Goal is immediately after build server is stable. > 5) Change permissions on Edk2-buildtools sub-project to read-only and mark sub-project as inactive. > a. Date: TBD. Goal is immediately after EDK II BaseTools is synced with EDK2-buildtools. > 6) Retire edk...@li... mailing list. All commits to BaseTools sources will show up on edk...@li.... > 7) Retire edk...@li... and move all BaseTools related discussions to edk...@li... > > Thanks, > > Mike |
