Hi Mike, On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 16:33:31 +0000, Michael D Kinney wrote: > > >> 1. If virtually everyone will need Uncrustify, why cannot it be built > > >> along with BaseTools from a submodule? Especially > > >> with the fork that makes sense, after that it depends on the upstream > > >> (it does not look too nice to me). > > > No matter where uncrustify sources are hosted, developers can always > > > choose to build the uncrustify tool locally. > > > Providing release binaries for the tool may be simpler for some customers. > > > Using release binaries from EDK II CI agents will reduce CI execution > > > time. > > > > My point was it'd be nice if it (optionally) "just worked", so > > Uncrustify could be be built as part of the edk2 BaseTools build > > process, or release binaries could be downloaded by some script, or > > whatever really. I guess it could be the same logic as for the CI? > > Setting up a development work environment also requires the installation of > tools such as > compilers, NASM, IASL, etc. These are not handled as part of BaseTools today.
No, but users are not required to install a specific, not-yet-upstream version of a tool. This is the fundamental problem here. Once the edk2 support is available in upstream uncrustify, there is a substantial lag in how the updated version trickles down through packaging systems. > Supporting this indent style is one of the enhancements in the fork. If we > want to align > to one of the indent styles supported by a wider array of source > editors/IDEs, then that > would require a change to the EDK II Coding Style Specification and approval > from the > EDK II community. Yes. The above problem of getting the tool at the appropriate version is why I previously stated my preference as being to change to coding style so it matched what was already supported in upstream uncrustify. Adding a version of the tool as a submodule of BaseTools would be a mitigation for the 5-year window introduced by *depending* on not-yet-upstream support in a commonly used tool. > > 6) Allow static function declarations. > > I agree that static functions should be allowed. Please add any comments you > have to > the following Bugzilla. If you have ideas on the specific spec updates > required, then > please provide a patch against the spec markdown. > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1766 I think that's a different issue, but otherwise agreed. / Leif -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#83526): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/83526 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/84932137/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
