Julius Werner wrote: > > > needed in cbfstool (e.g. for the --hash-algorithm parameter to add a > > > hash attribute to a file), and there is no Kconfig cbfstool so you > > > can't just configure it out if you don't need it. > > > > It is clear that I don't need that functionality when I build a > > coreboot version without any vboot code, right? > > It's just an optional feature of cbfstool, it actually doesn't have > anything to do with the firmware verification part of vboot. I mean, > yes, you may not need it, but you may just as likely not need > --alignment or --topswap-size or --empty-fits
Sure, but those don't pull in some other dependencies. > cbfstool is a toolbox utility that supports everything people may > want to do with CBFS images Thanks for the reminder. Consider the two different use cases, or build targets, for cbfstool. One is what you describe - a generic utility supporting everything that gets installed into say /usr/local/bin for lots of different invocations to do lots of different things with lots of different coreboot images. Two is specifically what is required to complete the configured build. It's certainly useful, and I argue highly desirable, to consider these two cases distinct. > The goal with linking vboot into cbfstool is generally to be > transparent, it's just pulling a few routines from a submodule, > you're not really supposed to notice it. It's absurd to me that coreboot would require any routines out of any submodule for a build which will not use those routines. I find that completely flawed. Even worse is that you find it acceptable, or desirable, that a submodule is silently pulled in during the build. That may be typical for web development, but nothing that should be proliferated. One purpose of Kconfig is to ensure that only what's neccessary gets built. > Just like when you run `make unit-tests` it's pulling in a third-party > testing library from a submodule but generally you don't need to care > about those details either. It's wrong to pull in anything during build. I too am guilty of this by pushing for buildgcc, it would be good to improve that case too. Anyway, I understand that your culture may be the complete opposite of mine. > I am just saying I don't think this discussion should be about vboot It is because that's what consistently causes me extra work and frustration every time I want to build a minimal coreboot. What some people always want isn't OK to require when other people do not want it. I think that's just lazy, and not the smart kind. :\ //Peter _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
