On Fri, 2016-02-19 at 07:59 +0000, Long, Qin wrote: > I agree those changes really make sense for better alignment, under > both 1.0.2xx and 1.1 HEAD. The final out-of-box support will be > wonderful. > The updates (http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/edk2.git) looks > good to me. And I will follow more validations, and start the next > integration step-by-step.
Great, thanks. I should note that, as before, I haven't actually done any real *testing* of this lot. Only build testing under Linux. I think I did manage to create a Windows VM with a build environment for EDK2 at one point; I should at least dust that off. > Yeah, also will do more follow-ups about the remaining opens... Like using the OpenSSL TS support instead of our own? That would be good. Likewise I think I remember a vague plan of making it possible to disable the OCSP code, since we don't use it? Note that the OpenSSL 1.1 Beta 1 release is scheduled in "about a month"¹, and that is the feature/API freeze deadline. Anything we want added (other than bug fixes, of course), needs to be in by then. In the fullness of time, I would *also* like to clean up the litter of include files we provide in CryptoPkg/Include purely for the benefit of OpenSSL — removing stuff from OpenSslSupport.h as we go. If we really want to stop OpenSSL from including/requiring those headers then that makes sense to do before Beta 1 too. I might start by looking for things which can be considered "obviously" bugs — like including anything in netinet/ when configured with no-sock for example. And I really don't see why it needs syslog.h for the UEFI build, or dirent.h for a no-stdio (which really means no file access) build. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre [email protected] Intel Corporation ¹ https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg42723.html
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
