> On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 2016-10-21 12:37:21, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> I don't remember seeing any discussion regarding >> DISABLE_NEW_DEPRECATED_INTERFACES on the list, so I am a bit surprised >> seeing these bugs being filed and assigned. >> > > I agree. > > Also, the terminology seems confusing. 'new deprecated' seems like a > contradiction. I guess it means 'newly deprecated', but that seems > like a term that is quickly going to become obsolete. Soon there will > be old deprecated items that are disabled with this switch. > DISABLE_DEPRECATED_INTERFACES sounds better. > > But, shouldn't we have platforms opt-in to using the deprecated > interfaces rather than adding DISABLE_NEW_DEPRECATED_INTERFACES to the > build command line for every EDK II platform? > > Not using deprecated items should be the default for EDK II platforms. > If a platform has to opt-in to the deprecated content in their .dsc, > then it is obvious that they are relying on deprecated functionality. > > So, I guess I'd propose adding ENABLE_DEPRECATED_INTERFACES instead. >
Jordan, I think it depends on your point of view. If you have a platform that works and you update the edk2 revision you would expect it to still work. Thus the option is to DISABLE_DEPRECATED_INTERFACES as that maintains backward compatibility. I think it makes total sense to turn on DISABLE_DEPRECATED_INTERFACES on all the open source edk2 platform as soon as possible so all the open source code is following current best practices. Not to mention it would probably be a really good idea to give all the downstream folks a long lead time about the plan of making a non backward compatible change. Thanks, Andrew Fish > -Jordan > >> Before making any such changes, I would like a strong commitment from >> other package owners that deprecating an interface brings along with >> it the responsibility to update all existing callers, otherwise >> setting this define will only result in more breakage, and ARM has >> seen its share of inadvertent breakage in the past when changes to >> core code were made without taking other architectures into account. >> >> On 21 October 2016 at 02:21, <bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.tianocore.org> wrote: >>> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164 >>> >>> yonghong....@intel.com changed: >>> >>> What |Removed |Added >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Priority|Lowest |Normal >>> Status|UNCONFIRMED |CONFIRMED >>> Assignee|michael.d.kin...@intel.com |ard.biesheu...@linaro.org >>> Ever confirmed|0 |1 >>> Release(s) the| |EDK II Trunk >>> issues must be| | >>> fixed| | >>> >>> --- Comment #1 from yonghong....@intel.com --- >>> Assign to Package owner. >>> >>> -- >>> You are receiving this mail because: >>> You are the assignee for the bug. >> _______________________________________________ >> edk2-devel mailing list >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org <mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org> >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel >> <https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel> _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
