Hi everyone,
Recently I have been working on old TFM versions (1.3.0 mainly) and I have found it extremely difficult to set up the python environment. This is general problem of projects that use python modules.
The problem is as following: in tools/requirements.txt and tools/requirements_docs.txt TFM lists required python modules, some of them are with defined version (e.g. Sphinx==4.2.0), but some of them are without any required version or with minimum required version (e.g. sphinx-rtd-theme>=1.0.0). Some of these Python modules have dependencies on each other (e.g. Sphinx depends on m2r2), so the situation that happens is that after the release of TFM some modules might be updated to never version and when pip installing retuirements.txt we might end up with situation when modules are not compatible with each other.
This is extremely annoying to deal with especially when several modules have been updated. This requires a lot of poking around trying to find the compatible versions.
My proposal is to use strict versioning policy for all the modules (specifying version using <module>==<version>) and updating versions manually if required. This way it is guaranteed that after pip installing modules will work out of the box. This makes life for customers and developers easier especially when dealing with multiple TFM versions.
Regards, Bohdan Hunko
Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine Engineer CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW Mobile: +38099 50 19 714 Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.commailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com
From: Anton Komlev via TF-M tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 18:39 To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] TF-M configurability
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safehttps://intranet-content.infineon.com/explore/aboutinfineon/rules/informationsecurity/ug/SocialEngineering/Pages/SocialEngineeringElements_en.aspx.
Hello,
Recently we discussed the movement of relevant options into C header files as a potential configuration improvement. By this mail thread, I would like to provoke discussion on what else we are lacking in TF-M configurability and thoughts to make it better. Please share your ideas to review them in the upcoming tech forum.
Thanks, Anton