Hi Leif, czw., 8 sie 2019 o 19:53 Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> napisał(a): > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 07:05:29PM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote: > > > On a higher level, I confess to not being entirely convinced about the > > > triplicate .dsc/.dsc.inc/.fdf.inc setup. (Of the three, the .dsc.inc > > > is the one I object the least to.) > > > For the .dscs, I understand the desire to separate the build > > > directories, but could this be achieved with -D build flags instead? > > > Certainly the differences in .fdf.inc could be handled via > > > conditional statements determined in a single .dsc. > > > > > > If (and this is a possibility) the 3 different .dscs is the right way > > > forward, I still think everything other than the [defines] section > > > should be kept in a common .dsc.inc. > > > > > > > I will try the -D option. How about: > > - single .dsc / .fdf.inc > > - triple .dsc.inc (they overlap in really minimal way and show pretty > > good the differences between 3 variants) > > ? > > Yeah, that sounds good to me. Agreed on the .dsc.inc - you could > possibly slightly decrease duplication if keeping them as one file, > but it would be more difficult to read and review changes. >
Well, when you look into .dsc.inc details, you should notice that there is no repeated PCD (having the same value) in neither of 3 files. In case we decided to merge them into, we would end up with ifdefs, so I'm not convinced the readability would increase... Best regards, Marcin -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#45259): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/45259 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32793666/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
