[syslinux] gnu-efi submodule WAS: efi: Makefile improvement

[Patrick Masotta]

>>>  
 With all due respect, I have the feeling we
 might be putting too much 
 effort /
 resources on the gnu-efi code used in Syslinux. I
 wouldn't 
 even call this "my
 opinion", but if you would, then please add "in my
 
 very very very humble opinion".
 
 Although I don't like the
 fact that we are currently based on an old 
 (2014FEB) commit of the gnu-efi code:
 
 sf.net/p/gnu-efi/code/ci/ab54e2b40e914d0ca01dc3d44c8d4eb8517bf999
 
 and although I also don't
 like the relative difficulty to change to 
 another gnu-efi commit (emphasize on
 "commit", not "version"), I would 
 tend to think that adding / replicating gnu-efi
 code is not much of a 
 gain, while it would
 take already-limited resources.
 
 I have read posts (here in the Syslinux Mailing
 List, and elsewhere) 
 about this matter,
 such as not being able to use the gnu-efi code 
 already installed on the system, or a different
 version/commit, or to 
 avoid using git and
 to use some other format (such as a tar archive)... 
 If we were to consider such comments /
 situations, adding an additional 
 git repo
 or additional sub-directories would seem even worse under
 some 
 perspective.
 
 Considering that The Syslinux Project
 recommends, generally speaking, 
 using
 official binaries, and considering also that reproducing
 certain 
 behaviors would be more difficult
 if we were to be using different 
 bases for
 the gnu-efi code, perhaps we should not be
 "easing" the 
 possibility of
 changing such code (i.e. the gnu-efi commit on which 
 Syslinux builds upon).
 
 I would like to see, after
 "6.04-pre1" (whenever it would be 
 appropriate and when the changelog deserves it)
 an update of the 
 gnu-efi commit we are
 based on. Then we could see a "6.04-pre2", so we
 
 can test any potential difference.
 Alternatively, a separated branch in 
 git,
 updated in parallel to the master branch, with a newer
 gnu-efi 
 commit as base (instead of using
 the old one from 2014FEB), for tests 
 and
 comparisons, could be perhaps an option.
 
 Regards,
 Ady. 
 
 <<<

Please consider in all my previous posts on this topic where I say "version"
I really mean version, commit, whatever can be retrieved as the whole set of gnu-efi 
sources.

I agree; I think that every official Syslinux version should include
the "oficial" gnu-efi version but developers should be able to change it easily.
Many times when dealing with Syslinux EFI bugs I considered if the gnu-efi environment 
could've been the culprit but being able to rule that option out takes just too much time.

Of course people asking for support or reporting bugs should always use the official Syslinux 
sources including the corresponding official gnu-efi version/commit/whatever.

Best,
Patrick