[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Fix checksum writing in signboot.sh

From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Fix checksum writing in signboot.sh
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:30:43 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090320)

Alexander Graf wrote:

On 02.08.2009, at 13:15, Avi Kivity <address@hidden> wrote:

On 08/02/2009 01:25 PM, Filip Navara wrote:
While the patch is good, the code is unreadable. Can we mandate python for
such tricks?

No, please, no! Throwing additional tools at the problem is only going
to make it worse for Windows users. I'm not happy with using sh script
as it already added dependency on coreutils, but at least that's easy
to install. Python is a nightmare compared to that.

Is Python really so difficult to install under Windows? How many times do you have to click 'Next'?

Note that Windows users can usually use prebuilt binaries, so the 'Next' nightmare only affects a small number of Windows developers.

BTW, for years in ReactOS we had a way to build host tools with host
CC and these tools were written in plain ordinary C. This worked great
for both Windows and Linux builds and also for cross-compiling.

But then you have to write those tools in C, which is annoying.

Right. In fact we just switched from C to sh for portability reasons.

The problem is with cross compilers. Our build system is based around a single tool chain and we only do feature probing, sanity checking, cflags modifications, etc. on the target tool chain. If we build and run a C program using the host compiler (which is needed in order to be able to run the program), things get complicated quickly.

sh is preferred because it's a minimal dependency. I would be concerned about perl or python for the main build because those tools aren't available by default for windows. For something like a rom where we ship a default binary, as long as we detected the appropriate tools and disabled the build, I think it would be more reasonable.

I really think we should just make the current code work as is and be done. The script is pretty small and really readable IMHO.

We're going to have to revisit this for pc-bios since it depends on perl and it has a similar rom signing tool (biossums). It's far more sophisticated though and it's currently implemented in C. It may make sense to rewrite that tool in python/perl and have a single tool used for all of our roms.

We don't need to do this now though.


Anthony Liguori

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]