BinPlace with read only WDK

Is it possible to use BinPlace to place binaries somwhere with:

  1. A read-only $(BASEDIR).. (think of it as a read only mount from a
    network share.
  2. Not modifying the WDK shortcuts, that is, not having to enable
    separate_object_root.

Thanks,


Aram Hăvărneanu

Regarding (1), I don’t know, but I would be fairly surprised if making a wdk installation readonly (as it doesn’t appear to be reasonably possible to redefine ‘BASEDIR’ without replicating a lot of stuff) worked in a strict sense. If I recall correctly, OACR has issues with this (not really sure), and certainly at least creation of the ‘dirs’ files for the samples tree would fail. However, it might very well work well enough for you in practice; it’s easy enough to try, at least.

Regarding (2), if appears that makefile.new et. c. don’t use ‘separate_object_root’ proper, so it looks like it would work if you just replicated what goes on at the end of setenv.bat.

if /I “%separate_object_root%” == “FALSE” goto exit

set _NTTREE=%BASEDIR%.binaries%DDK_TARGET_OS%%_BUILDARCH%%DDKBUILDENV%
set OBJECT_ROOT=%BASEDIR%.obj

set BINPLACE_EXCLUDE_FILE=%BASEDIR%\bin\symbad.txt
set BINPLACE_LOG=%_NTTREE%\build_logs\binplace.log
set BINPLACE_PDB_DLL=mspdb80.dll

set NO_BINPLACE=

set NTDBGFILES=1
set NTDBGFILES_PRIVATE=1

if Not Exist %_NTTREE% md %_NTTREE%
if Not Exist %_NTTREE%\build_logs md %_NTTREE%\build_logs
if Not Exist %OBJECT_ROOT% md %OBJECT_ROOT%

All that being said, based on what you’ve already reported and other threads that you’ve started in the past, I’m wondering if I’m missing something here, because I’m guessing that you already know this.

Good luck,

mm

Probably, but it would take more time than it is worth and most likely become an absolutly royal pain in the ass. I would not have it on my system and were I involved with an employer that insisted on such a perversion, I would most likely have to find a work around to get my job done, such as copying their “read only” to my local disk space and changing BASEDIR.

It’s a frigging waste of time. If someone is manipulating the WDK, find them and let them know that the next time they change anything in the WDK, mean wicked and nasty things will happen that make their existence miserable.

Gary G. Little
H (952) 223-1349
C (952) 454-4629
xxxxx@comcast.net

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Aram Havarneanu
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:26 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] BinPlace with read only WDK

Is it possible to use BinPlace to place binaries somwhere with:

  1. A read-only $(BASEDIR).. (think of it as a read only mount from a
    network share.
  2. Not modifying the WDK shortcuts, that is, not having to enable
    separate_object_root.

Thanks,


Aram Hăvărneanu


NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4996 (20100403) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4996 (20100403) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

He’s writing his own OS and trying to arrange it so that he only needs one toolchain.

If it works, it works and then it’s STATIC.

mm

MM wrote:

He’s writing his own OS and trying to arrange it so that he
only needs one toolchain.

Whoa, how do we know this? Is there another thread or you just have an amazing level of insight…

I think I have the right guy:

http://www.osronline.com/showThread.cfm?link=177401

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:16 PM, wrote:
> He’s writing his own OS and trying to arrange it so that he only needs one toolchain.
>

This has nothing to do with my hobby projects.

This has to do with my real projects. My clients run unmodified
versions of the WDK. I cannot tell my clients: “here, just modify your
WDK setup with separate_object_root option and set OBJECT_ROOT and
_NTTREE and whatelse regardless of the fact that this project is not
the only project you build”. My clients run default WDKs, I must use
only default WDKs. I thought this has been discussed so many times in
the past.


Aram Hăvărneanu

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Gary G. Little wrote:
> It’s a frigging waste of time. If someone is manipulating the WDK, find them and let them know that the next time they change anything in the WDK, mean wicked and nasty things will happen that make their existence miserable.
>

But this post was about NOT modifying the WDK! Right now, it seems
that the only way to use BinPlace is by modifying the WDK like this:

1) Modify the WDK shortcuts.
2) Set up GLOBAL variables (that influence every project, there’s no
easy way to set them per project).


Aram Hăvărneanu

Who needs binplace anyway (outside of MS) ?
A typical amount of binaries (below a dozen or so) can be managed with a
simple cmd file.
IMHO.

–pa

“Aram Havarneanu” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Gary G. Little
> wrote:
>> It’s a frigging waste of time. If someone is manipulating the WDK, find
>> them and let them know that the next time they change anything in the
>> WDK, mean wicked and nasty things will happen that make their existence
>> miserable.
>>
>
> But this post was about NOT modifying the WDK! Right now, it seems
> that the only way to use BinPlace is by modifying the WDK like this:
>
> 1) Modify the WDK shortcuts.
> 2) Set up GLOBAL variables (that influence every project, there’s no
> easy way to set them per project).
>
> –
> Aram HÄfvÄfrneanu
>

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Pavel A. wrote:
> Who needs binplace anyway (outside of MS) ?
> A typical amount of binaries (below a dozen or so) can be managed with a
> simple cmd file.
> IMHO.

Right now I use a PASS2 custom Makefile target. It moves the binaries
there I want them, however I need to keep in sync all targets from
various SOURCES files with what’s specified in my custom Makefile.inc
files.

BinPlace would be an improvement because I would not have to reference
the same binaries twice. I don’t even object to the default _NTTREE, I
can live with the global default, what bothers me is the fact that I
need to modify the WDK shortcuts.


Aram Hăvărneanu

I use it for some of my projects. It’s handy to collect everything into a single directory for projects that have many dlls that get built, for instance.

  • S

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Pavel A.
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:43 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] BinPlace with read only WDK

Who needs binplace anyway (outside of MS) ?
A typical amount of binaries (below a dozen or so) can be managed with a
simple cmd file.
IMHO.

–pa

“Aram Havarneanu” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Gary G. Little
> wrote:
>> It’s a frigging waste of time. If someone is manipulating the WDK, find
>> them and let them know that the next time they change anything in the
>> WDK, mean wicked and nasty things will happen that make their existence
>> miserable.
>>
>
> But this post was about NOT modifying the WDK! Right now, it seems
> that the only way to use BinPlace is by modifying the WDK like this:
>
> 1) Modify the WDK shortcuts.
> 2) Set up GLOBAL variables (that influence every project, there’s no
> easy way to set them per project).
>
> –
> Aram H?fv?frneanu
>


NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

“Aram Havarneanu” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> BinPlace would be an improvement because I would not have to reference
> the same binaries twice.

A good point.

> I don’t even object to the default _NTTREE, I
> can live with the global default, what bothers me is the fact that I
> need to modify the WDK shortcuts.

Hmm. Then maybe I’d rather “hook” binplace - since it depends on esoteric
details
of the build system, I’d try to tweak something so that build will call my
own script
instead of binplace from WDK.
Hope the command line parameters of binpace invocation will be more stable.

Regards,
–pa

How about just not using binplace? I’ve never seen the need to use it. I
understand not wanting to modify the WDK tree, but what is the need for a
read only sandbox for building your own sources?

Mark Roddy

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Gary G. Little
> wrote:
> > It’s a frigging waste of time. If someone is manipulating the WDK, find
> them and let them know that the next time they change anything in the WDK,
> mean wicked and nasty things will happen that make their existence
> miserable.
> >
>
> But this post was about NOT modifying the WDK! Right now, it seems
> that the only way to use BinPlace is by modifying the WDK like this:
>
> 1) Modify the WDK shortcuts.
> 2) Set up GLOBAL variables (that influence every project, there’s no
> easy way to set them per project).
>
> –
> Aram Hăvărneanu
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

Just specify where you want the sys dll exe etc build outputs to go in your
sources file.
I thought everyone already did this.

Mark Roddy

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Skywing wrote:

> I use it for some of my projects. It’s handy to collect everything into a
> single directory for projects that have many dlls that get built, for
> instance.
>
> - S
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:
> xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Pavel A.
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:43 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] BinPlace with read only WDK
>
> Who needs binplace anyway (outside of MS) ?
> A typical amount of binaries (below a dozen or so) can be managed with a
> simple cmd file.
> IMHO.
>
> --pa
>
> “Aram Havarneanu” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Gary G. Little
> > wrote:
> >> It’s a frigging waste of time. If someone is manipulating the WDK, find
> >> them and let them know that the next time they change anything in the
> >> WDK, mean wicked and nasty things will happen that make their existence
> >> miserable.
> >>
> >
> > But this post was about NOT modifying the WDK! Right now, it seems
> > that the only way to use BinPlace is by modifying the WDK like this:
> >
> > 1) Modify the WDK shortcuts.
> > 2) Set up GLOBAL variables (that influence every project, there’s no
> > easy way to set them per project).
> >
> > –
> > Aram H?fv?frneanu
> >
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

> How about just not using binplace? I’ve never seen the need to use it.

One side effect of binplace is that it updates the PDB filename embedded in
the executable, removing the path. If you ship a non-binplaced executable,
you’re “leaking” a small bit of information about your source code
organization. This could be a problem if the directory path includes an
internal project code name or an expletive.

I think I could probably address that issue all on my own without any
dependency on obscure non standard and mostly undocumented tools.

Mark Roddy

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:30 PM, John McNamee wrote:

> How about just not using binplace? I’ve never seen the need to use it.
>>
>
> One side effect of binplace is that it updates the PDB filename embedded in
> the executable, removing the path. If you ship a non-binplaced executable,
> you’re “leaking” a small bit of information about your source code
> organization. This could be a problem if the directory path includes an
> internal project code name or an expletive.
>
>
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>