Sorry for the late response, i just wanted to say thanks for your work That there is no automation is surprising, so double thanks for doing it by hand.

I fully understand (and respect) the wishes of the developers. Though off course it is fantasy that we dumbos understand something that we copy paste. but that you for keeping the docs up to date, which allowed me to build a small mac mini clone. Btw, if you put up a paypal button, i'll happily press it.

And thanks for the slowgeek, it did pick up those inevitable mistakes

This is a suggestion for the Desktop Guide (would be easier to have issues there?)

The issue is that users have to follow your (very good and precise) docs by hand.

The docs a clearly auto generated to remove duplication between the cpu's. This is as it should be, off course. And it would make it very easy to take the next step.

Suggestion: greate a downloadable config.plist for every cpu, that already includes all the edits that are descibed in the page.

Example: I have a i3-8100, so i follow https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Install-Guide/config.plist/coffee-lake.html This page describes what i need to do to the general config.plist Would be easier if a config.plist with the required changes would be ready for download.

I am assuming that you use python the generate the docs. So one could just use python to generate the plist.

I would be happy to help, as a thanks for all your hard work.

Hi, I just want to chip in, as i am also looking for an open source car sharing solution. I am a somewhat seasoned developer developer (read: willing and able to chip in) but my question is if you guys have a "strategy" how to handle the sharing vs the pooling. Ie in pooling people share a ride (at the same time). In car sharing, people share a car (using it at different times). Config can probably go a long way, but as there will be quite substantial differences, i am wonder if the main developers are open to this option.

Well, what can i say. Thanks for the effort, but mostly , ahem, sorry.

I stopped using rubocop at some point when codeclimate introduced reek. As you can see the .codeclimate has a line with rubocop: false. I should have taken the .rubocop away, sorry

You are right, it was getting to much to update it by hand. But it did complain a lot about some coding patterns that i was intentionally using (mostly visitor patter in the compilers)

We can still talk, but as you say, this will not be merged. If you want to make a PR with removing the .rubocop i'll accept that, and also any improvements on docs , or test docs. By the nature of time, i have difficulties taking a newbie perspective after 5 years, and would be happy for outside feedback on how approachable rubyx is.

Ok, many things. I'll start here with the linker. Bug #13 is old and requires a link step before running an executable. Some test, like class TestArm test an actual arm executable through qemu. They test for the linker availability and the warning you saw is when the linker is not available.

That warning should be supressed and yes, more docs would be good (and a small start is in the test/README if you want to have a go)

well thanks, and sorry, i haven't set up a rakefile

try

ruby test/test_all.rb

that should work

compiling your own code will be tricky, as only parts of the language are implemented, and error handling is non existing

Hi @abinoam thanks for trying to fix it. You didn't include the command that was run, so i can't reproduce. I have used 2.6.x , i think even 3, though not sure. 2.5 is so much faster, i switched back.

If you tell me the command, i can check myself