[OE-core] [PATCH v3 1/9] uefi.conf: add config file holding configuration for UEFI applications

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 18:36 +0300, dbaryshkov at gmail.com wrote:
> From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dmitry_eremin-solenikov at mentor.com>
> 
> Create new config file defining common variables for all UEFI-related
> packages (bootloaders, test applications, etc).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <
> dmitry_eremin-solenikov at mentor.com>
> ---
>  meta/conf/uefi.conf | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 meta/conf/uefi.conf

This is heading in the right direction however if we're going to try
and clean things up I've concluded we need to do it properly and get it
right.

Now I understand more about how this configuration file is being used,
should it be called image-uefi.conf ?

I feel really strongly that we do not want an uefi.bbclass, its simply
not warranted and will just continue to expand the current mess of
classes. If all we need it for is some functions, those functions
should be added elsewhere.

I hadn't realised they were shell functions earlier, sorry about that.
One option could be to convert them to python since they could be
written in python easily. You could call a python function as a prefunc
or postfunc of another shell or python function.

Other options could be to make them shell commands (via the script
directory) or create an image-functions.bbclass which contains such
shared functions generically. As long as things are namespaced (which
they already are), that should be fine. I would ask that documentation
comments be added to them to say what the functions do.

I'm also on the lookout for tests of these kinds of codepaths. Code is
much more likely to be accepted if tests are added for it. I'm not
quite sure what would make most sense here in this case buts its a
general point I will be pushing for going forward.

Cheers,

Richard