[edk2-devel] [PATCH edk2-InfSpecification] Drop statement on package ordering

[Leif Lindholm]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 15:29:55 +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> I have not been aware of the header name collision scenario (nor that
> the [Packages] ordering was supposed to work around such issues).

Nor had I...

> I work strictly with edk2 proper, where a name collision like this can
> be detected, and so should be prevented. (Insert yet another argument
> why keeping platform code outside of edk2 is a bad idea.) In particular,
> a collision between MdePkg and MdeModulePkg would be super bad.
> 
> Which now seems to turn out consistent with my general review point that
> the [Packages] section, like (almost) all other INF file sections,
> should be sorted lexicographically.
> 
> How about replacing
> 
> """
> Packages must be listed in the order that may be required for specifying
> include path statements for a compiler. For example, the MdePkg/MdePkg.dec_
> file must be listed before the `MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec` file.
> """
> 
> with
> 
> """
> The order in which packages are listed may be relevant. Said order
> specifies in what order include path statements are generated for a
> compiler. Normally, header file name collisions are not expected between
> packages -- they are forbidden in edk2 proper --, but with a module INF
> consuming both edk2-native and out-of-edk2 packages, header file names
> may collide. For setting specific include path priorities, the packages
> may be listed in matching order in the INF file. Listing a package
> earlier will cause a compiler to consider include paths from that
> package earlier.
> """

Could I suggest striking:
" -- they are forbidden in edk2 proper --, but with a module INF
consuming both edk2-native and out-of-edk2 packages, header file
names may collide"?

This document specifies a file format, not automatically edk2-related.

I think we're reaching a point where a major documentation overhaul is
necessary. I had already been reflecting on how the coding style
document encompasses more than coding style (at one point it explains
how while() loops are different from do{}while() loops). And we
recently had that conversation around struct assignments which some
maintainers claim are banned, but which is not mentioned in that
document.

Not trying to resolve that issue *now*, just reflecting on how some
things have been added to these documents historically to deal with a
specific issue, and ended up confusing things as improved development
practices have made the original problem go away.

So with the edk2 refences removed, I like your new wording.

/
    Leif



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#60587): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/60587
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/74544111/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-