On 02/18/16 12:20, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 09:50 +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 02/18/16 09:44, Long, Qin wrote: >>> Thanks for raising this, Laszlo. >>> >>> Exactly, the posted patch series from David also included one >> 1.0.2f enabling. The patch series will bring one direct / smooth >> supports for EDKII-CryptoPkg with some patch integration in both >> EDKII and OpenSSL sides, and also introduce some source generation >> mechanism for more native build support. >>> >>> I will work on more validations based on David's post, and also >> work with David on other possible updates (e.g. include file issue). >> This may need some extra times. >>> >>> Before all patches were integrated, my plan is to have one 1.0.2f >> upgrade firstly based on my last patch, which will not change any >> build process, and just to catch the latest release for some >> requirements. >>> >>> (David, apology for my late feedback to your patch post.) >>> >>> Let me know if any concerns. >> >> Works for me if it works for David. > > Yeah, that's fine. I'm happy to rebase my tree and put the upgrade to > 1.0.2f first.
Thank you for confirming -- consider my NACK rescinded. > Although I *did* like having "it's easy now..." as the commit comment. > > That exercise has highlighted one more potential improvement — the > upgrade from 1.0.2e to 1.0.2f did require changing about 18 instances > of the string "1.0.2e" to "1.0.2f". I'll see if I can cut that down. Thanks! Laszlo _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
