> On Aug 5, 2015, at 2:36 PM, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 2015-08-05 12:51:47, Andrew Fish wrote: >> On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> >> wrote: >> Unless we do something about most of those references then WORKSPACE >> will have to be set to your 'edk2' tree. Therefore your Conf files >> must exist in your edk2 tree, and your build output must exist in your >> edk2 tree, and BaseTools must exist in your edk2 tree. >> >> Sorry I'm not following. In our local hack we do something like. > > What I meant is what if I want to have Build, Conf, BaseTools and > package source code come from different directories. For example: > > Build: ~/udk/build > Conf: /usr/lib/udk/2014/conf > BaseTools: /usr/lib/udk/2014/bin > udk packages: /usr/lib/udk/2014/src > platform packages: ~/udk/platform > > and, the same platform should be buildable on windows: > > Build: C:\src\udk\build > Conf: C:\udk\2014\conf > BaseTools: C:\udk\2014\bin > udk packages: C:\udk\2014\src > platform packages: C:\src\udk\platform > >> BaseTools/ -> edk2 tools >> BuildResults/ -> Build output >> edk2/ -> Open source edk2 stuff >> Vendor/ -> code from vendors, that is usually rooted in $(WORKSPACE). > > It doesn't seem like $WORKSPACE/EmulatorPkg exists. Since we've broken > $WORKSPACE/EmulatorPkg and the like, making $WORKSPACE a path list > doesn't break things further. > >> So we set WORKSPACE_MULTIPLE = >> WORKSPACE/edk2;WORKSPACE/Vendor/Alpha;WORKSPACE/Vendor/Beta >> and we are good. >> >> Thus you can : >> Move the edk2/ code to any location you want down stream of WORKSPACE >> BuildResults is defined in DSC so it can be any location you want down >> stream of WORKSPACE. > > I take your feedback here and what I see is that you think of > WORKSPACE more as the place where BaseTools, Build and Conf live, and > less about where EDK II packages live. This is opposite of me, as I > generally think of WORKSPACE as the place where EDK II package code > lives. > > That's fine. I can adjust my thinking and abandon the notion that > WORKSPACE refers to package source code. What if we instead add a new > PACKAGES_PATH list, rather than WORKSPACE_MULTIPLE? At least it sounds > better (terminology-wise) to me. >
I don’t have an issue shifting the name to PACKAGES_PATH if that helps folks figure out what we are trying to accomplish. Thanks, Andrew Fish > -Jordan _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
