Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:00:18 +0100 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: UEFI Plugfest 2013 -- New Orleans |
| |
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:22:45AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 13:55 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:25:35AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > Every deviation from the spec (or common sense), however minor, should > > > show up as a clear failure. Even the ones we *have* been able to work > > > around, because we still want them *fixed*. > > > > Why? It's not like we can ever stop carrying that code. > > The reason for doing it is that we have a buildable reference > implementation that's fully spec compliant we can then make the basis of > a test suite for UEFI.
And why's that a benefit? Nobody's ever going to be able to ship an OS that doesn't implement these workarounds - they're de-facto part of the spec. It'd make more sense to document them officially.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
| |