On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 21:20:51 +0000, Michael D Kinney wrote: > > > 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. > > There is an RFC with no negative feedback to move to NASM 2.15.05. > > I do not believe that is the version supported in all the distros > packaging systems yet.
It is in current Debian stable. It is *not* in Ubuntu LTS. > So I expect there will likely be many windows of time where the > EDK II projects have a dependency on a tool in that state. > > If this was a significant concern, why was it not raised with the > NASM 2.15.05? I might have raised it if I had been actively tracking NASM usage, but I'll confess I don't. But even then - that is talking about NASM 2.15.05, released August 2020, not NASM HEAD today with some additional patches. > > > 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. > > Stating a preference without specific details on the exact style that is > actionable by developers and verifiable does not help close on this > topic. The preference was raised here only as the alternative to requiring uncrustify modifications. I stated the delta (with specific details) in my email on 7 October, and yes, you responeded to that, but no one else seemed interested in that path, so I didn't follow up. > Can you provide the specific details and update the BZs provided in an > earlier version of this thread: > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/81609 > > If you are not able to provide details, but are rejecting this proposal all > together, then please be clear that you are rejecting the proposal so those > that are working on it can move on to other priorities. As per above. / Leif -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#83532): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/83532 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
