[flashrom] Re: libflashrom rust binding

[Evan Benn]

If there are no other comments I would like to soon push the patches I
have on gerrit as the review is coming to a conclusion:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/65280
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/65281

These add rust libraries to the

bindings/rust/libflashrom{,-sys}

paths and exclude those from tarball creation.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 at 09:49, Evan Benn  wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 at 07:28, Felix Singer  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm also fine with having this in the flashrom repository. As I
> > understand it, you are just playing around currently. As long as this
> > is not hooked up to the build system during this phase (to avoid
> > problems), I don't see a problem here.
>
> I do intend to get this submitted soon, and in chromeos we will be using
>
> flashrom_tester -> rust bindings -> libflashrom
>
> to 'AVL' qualify new flash chips for inclusion in chromeos devices.
> > Though, when the plans and ideas get more concrete, then it might make
> > sense to use a separate repository for it. But let's see where this
> > goes :)
> >
> > // Felix
> >
> > On Sat, 2022-07-30 at 19:24 +0000, Thomas Heijligen wrote:
> > > Hi Evan, Greg,
> > > sorry for my late response.
> > >
> > > I'm fine with having language bindings in the flashrom repository.
> > > Especially when a user of those bindings lives also in the
> > > repository.
> > > But then we have to find a way to make building everything convenient
> > > for developers and distributers.
> > > The other solution would be to create new repositories in gerrit for
> > > the bindings and the user of it. This would imply that we fix our api
> > > versioning first.
>
> The API versioning does sound like a big topic, I do prefer to
> continue in the same
> repo if possible as it does sidestep those issues for now. When a
> strong libflashrom
> versioning story emerges we can move things around. The rust binding
> uses -pre 1.0
> versioning to indicate that there is no compatibility between versions.
>
> For packaging I can exclude the rust bindings from the flashrom
> tarball, and to make
> a rust binding tarball `cargo package` can be used.
> > > Imo the separate repositories in combination with some gerrit bots
> > > might be the best solution to make everyone happy. But I'll support
> > > you, Evan, on the solution you will choose.
> > >
> > > -- Thomas
> > >
> > > On 20 July 2022 01:28:34 CEST, Evan Benn 
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 at 03:46, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> > > > > Evan Benn  writes:
> > > > > > I think the first question is is the flashrom community happy
> > > > > > to have
> > > > > > these bindings live inside the flashrom git repo? They could
> > > > > > live in
> > > > > > their own separate repos, but keeping them with flashrom will
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > keeping up with libflashrom API changes more straightforward.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am more or less an outsider, but as a packager:
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not want the binding to be hooked into the main build
> > > > > system.
> > > > >
> > > > > Building flashrom is one thing, and I expect that to work
> > > > > pretty much
> > > > >    everywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Good point, I will make sure the bindings are not part of the build
> > > > system.
> > > > > Building the rust bindings I expect to be not wanted by
> > > > > everyone who
> > > > >    wants flashrom, to have heavier dependencies (rustc is
> > > > > beastly), and
> > > > >    to have signficant portability problems.  That's all fine, but
> > > > > if in
> > > > >    the same release tarball there should be a way to cd to some
> > > > > subdir,
> > > > >    and build, expecting that flashrom is already installed and
> > > > > using the
> > > > >    installed headers and libs, and expecting a rust compiler.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't care at all about upstream repo organization if the
> > > > > rust
> > > > >    binding is its own release tarball.
> > > >
> > > > I agree, the bindings do not need to go in the flashrom tarball.
> > > > > I'll observe that changes to libflashrom and changes to the
> > > > > bindings
> > > > >    may not be connected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given all of the above, I think it's better to have each
> > > > > language
> > > > >    binding be a separate repo with separate release tarballs.
> > > >
> > > > I see it is possible to exclude files from the archive using
> > > > .gitattributes,
> > > > but that does not make it easy to publish a libflashrom-rust-
> > > > bindings
> > > > archive separately.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know the process or contact for creating a new archive
> > > > on
> > > > review.coreboot.org?
> > > >
> > > > Thanksflashrom mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > >
> > > flashrom mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]