Laszlo, I think it makes sense to post validated shell binaries with the edk2-stable tag releases. GitHub does support this when a release tag is made.
However, we would need to make it simple for a platform to use a binary from that location. We may need some enhancements to pull in binary artifacts from different locations to support a platform build that uses one or more pre-built binaries. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 3:10 AM > To: Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com>; Bi, Dandan > <dandan...@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org > Cc: Cetola, Stephano <stephano.cet...@intel.com>; > Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Gao, > Liming <liming....@intel.com>; Carsey, Jaben > <jaben.car...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Plan to delete ShellBinPkg > from edk2/master > > On 04/03/19 04:17, Ni, Ray wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: edk2-devel <edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org> > On Behalf Of Laszlo > >> Ersek > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 4:49 PM > >> To: Bi, Dandan <dandan...@intel.com>; edk2- > de...@lists.01.org > >> Cc: Cetola, Stephano <stephano.cet...@intel.com>; > Kinney, Michael D > >> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Gao, Liming > <liming....@intel.com>; Carsey, > >> Jaben <jaben.car...@intel.com> > >> Subject: Re: [edk2] [RFC] Plan to delete ShellBinPkg > from edk2/master > >> > >> On 04/02/19 07:38, Bi, Dandan wrote: > >>> Hi All, > >>> > >>> ShellBinPkg is the remaining binary package in Edk2 > repo. We plan to > >> delete ShellBinPkg from edk2/master, and keep source > ShellPkg only in edk2 > >> repo. > >>> Before the deletion, I will update the existing > consumers in Edk2 and > >> Edk2Platforms to use ShellPkg directly. > >>> > >>> If you have any concern please raise here before > mid-April . If there is no > >> concern, I will create patches for this task after > mid-April. > >>> > >>> Bugzilla for this task: > >>> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1675 > >> > >> (adding a few CC's) > >> > >> I think we should not remove ShellBinPkg without a > replacement > >> *somehwere*. > >> > >> A shell binary that is built from a validated edk2 > tree, with a set of library > >> resolutions and PCD settings that are known to keep > platform dependencies > >> *out* of the shell binary, is extremely useful. > > > > I understand the concern. > > Maybe a "Shell.dsc.inc" provided by ShellPkg which > lists all library resolutions > > , PCD settings and build options can be included by > platform DSC to resolve such > > dependency issue. > > > >> > >> IIRC, Andrew suggested earlier that we should treat > the shell even as an "OS", > >> with better compatibility standards than we > currently maintain. > >> > >> I think we should only remove ShellBinPkg if we > permanently offer a > >> separate download location instead, and we rebuild > the shell binary from > >> "ShellPkg/ShellPkg.dsc" at every stable tag. > > > > I do not quite understand. All other modules in edk2 > repo are source-included by > > OvmfPkg and daily commits directly generates new > binaries for OvmfPkg. > > I do not think we should have a different "binary- > generation" model for > > shell. > > The standalone shell binary would not be offered for > OVMF, but for all > possible UEFI platforms (physical and virtual alike). > > People frequently turn to the UEFI shell for debugging > UEFI issues on > their physical machines. Such users are generally not > interested in > building the shell from source, just booting it as > easily as possible. > > Thanks, > Laszlo > > > >> In that case, removing ShellBinPkg would indeed > improve the edk2 tree, in > >> my opinion. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Laszlo > >> _______________________________________________ > >> edk2-devel mailing list > >> edk2-devel@lists.01.org > >> 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
