Re: [edk2-buildtools] [edk2] binary-only modules and [depex] sections

2012-12-05 Thread Gao, Liming
Andrew: Another risk is that GuidCName may have the different value in pre-build workspace and current workspace. If so, the binary EFI image and its Depex doesn't match, which may cause unexpected issue. Thanks Liming From: Andrew Fish [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 201

Re: [edk2-buildtools] [edk2] binary-only modules and [depex] sections

2012-12-05 Thread Andrew Fish
Larry, If I was receiving a binary from some vendor and an depex I would rather get the Depex in text form so I could modify it if needed. For example what if I only want to load the binary in certain circumstances? I might want to AND in a platform specific protocol that means load the binary

Re: [edk2-buildtools] [edk2] binary-only modules and [depex] sections

2012-12-05 Thread Hauch, Larry
Hi Tim, You are correct in what the INF specification states. Unfortunately, this line was added accidentally. As a future enhancement, we had planned on adding the depex statements "in comments" underneath the [Depex] section in the "As Built" INF file generated by the build system. We have not

Re: [edk2-buildtools] [edk2] binary-only modules and [depex] sections

2012-12-05 Thread Justin_Johnson1
Hi Larry, Thanks for your detailed response. What you say correctly describes the current behavior. I'm asking why that behavior is desired, and suggesting that it is not desired. I believe there may be situations where you want a binary distributed driver, but a human-readable dependency expres