> On Jun 30, 2015, at 7:12 PM, Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Samer:
> What means back to back !include? What issue is it? Could you give one
> sample for it?
>
I posted an example on the mailing list of the failure a while back.
Thanks,
Andrew Fish
> Thanks
> Liming
> From: El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer [mailto:samer.el-haj-mahm...@hp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:13 AM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [edk2] Question on DSC double includes
>
> Thanks Larry! This is a good plan.
>
> I will submit the patches for the back to back !include fix, as well as the
> nested !includes
>
> Thanks,
> --Samer
>
> From: Hauch, Larry [mailto:larry.ha...@intel.com
> <mailto:larry.ha...@intel.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 4:54 PM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] Question on DSC double includes
>
> Hi Folks,
> Unfortunately, we are just getting ready to put updates to the DSC and FDF
> specs out on the web. The next revision of the specs probably won’t come out
> until the end of the year.
> Until that time, we can use this e-mail.
>
> I will update statements in the specs from “may not” to “should not”.
>
> For the tools to support nested !include statements, please submit your patch.
> This is a reasonable request.
> As Andrew pointed out, this will lead to confusing error message line
> numbers, so I will also add in the spec that if nested !include files are
> used, the error message line numbers are not necessarily correct due to the
> use of !include files.
>
> We may be able to enhance the build system in the future to provide better
> error messages with more accurate line number information, and suggestions
> are welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Larry Hauch
> Intel Corporation
> SSG, STO, Platform Software Infrastructure
> 705 5th Ave S. Suite 500
> Seattle, WA 98104
> Work: (206) 701-8842
>
>
> From: Andrew Fish [mailto:af...@apple.com <mailto:af...@apple.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:56 PM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] Question on DSC double includes
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2015, at 1:34 PM, El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer
> <samer.el-haj-mahm...@hp.com <mailto:samer.el-haj-mahm...@hp.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Andrew. I have a fix for the back to back !includes. I will send a
> patch with the fix….
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> I also have a patch to allow for nested !includes. But I cannot submit it
> until the DSC spec issue statement below is cleared up. Anyone can comment on
> the DSC spec?
>
>
>
> My reading of the specification is it does not restrict you from doing this,
> as it makes nesting an optional feature.
>
>
>
>
> From: Andrew Fish [mailto:af...@apple.com <mailto:af...@apple.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:03 PM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] Question on DSC double includes
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2015, at 10:54 AM, El-Haj-Mahmoud, Samer
> <samer.el-haj-mahm...@hp.com <mailto:samer.el-haj-mahm...@hp.com>> wrote:
>
> The DSC Spec v1.24 explicitly says: “File specified by !include statements
> may not contain !include statements.”.
>
> From working on industry specifications for last 15+ years, and channelling
> my inner Mark Doran…..
>
> May in this context is optional, so an implementation that included more
> nesting would be OK per the spec.
>
> From a specification point of view the correct forms are MUST NOT, or SHALL
> NOT.
>
> While "may not” restricts permission in its common usage in English, I don’t
> think it is well defined in the context of a spec.
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>
> 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
> definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
>
> 2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
> definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
>
> 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
>
> 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
> there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
> particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
> implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
> before implementing any behavior described with this label.
> 5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
> truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
> particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
> it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
> An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
> prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
> include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
> same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
> MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
> does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
> option provides.)
>
> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
>
> Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
> and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
> actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
> potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
> example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
> on implementors where the method is not required for
> interoperability.
>
> 7. Security Considerations
>
> These terms are frequently used to specify behavior with security
> implications. The effects on security of not implementing a MUST or
> SHOULD, or doing something the specification says MUST NOT or SHOULD
> NOT be done may be very subtle. Document authors should take the time
> to elaborate the security implications of not following
> recommendations or requirements as most implementors will not have
> had the benefit of the experience and discussion that produced the
> specification.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew Fish
>
>
>
> Based on the version history, this was added in v1.22a in December, 2011.
>
> Any reason why this limitation exists? We have scenarios where we need common
> features to have their own DSCs file to be included from other (less common)
> DSC files (for at least 2 or 3 levels of includes).
>
>
> +1 on this one!
>
> Also there are times that this will fail.
> !include A.dsc
> !include B.dsc
>
> And doing ‘!include’ breaks line numbers in a lot of error messages.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew Fish
>
>
> Thanks,
> --Samer
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud.
> GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that
> you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business.
> Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today.
> https://www.gigenetcloud.com/_______________________________________________
> <https://www.gigenetcloud.com/_______________________________________________>
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud.
> GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that
> you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business.
> Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today.
> https://www.gigenetcloud.com/_______________________________________________
> <https://www.gigenetcloud.com/_______________________________________________>
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud.
> GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that
> you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business.
> Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today.
> https://www.gigenetcloud.com/_______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud.
GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that
you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business.
Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today.
https://www.gigenetcloud.com/
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
