On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 July 2018 at 19:35, Joshua Watt <[email protected]> wrote: >> - cmd = d.expand("cd ${S}; kconf_check --report -o ${S}/%s/cfg/ >> ${B}/.config ${S} %s" % (kmeta,configs)) >> - ret, result = oe.utils.getstatusoutput("%s%s" % (pathprefix, cmd)) >> + try: >> + configs = subprocess.check_output(['scc', '--configs', '-o', s + >> '/.kernel-meta'], env=env).decode('utf-8') >> + except subprocess.CalledProcessError: >> + # Is this really non-fatal? >> + pass >> + >> + try: >> + subprocess.check_call(['kconf_check', '--report', '-o', >> + '%s/%s/cfg' % (s, kmeta), d.getVar('B') + '/.config', s, >> configs], cwd=s, env=env) >> + except subprocess.CalledProcessError: >> + # Is this really non-fatal? >> + pass > > CCing Bruce for his feedback. Either one or both of these calls can > fail without it being fatal which should be documented, or it > shouldn't be catching the exceptions.
Yah. Don't grab this patch at all. I have a set of changes that muck all about in here, so I'll have to look and integrate things by hand. My question about the change .. is why ? I really don't like cleanup patches on principle, and want things pinned to a bug, a performance issue or something else. Cheers, Bruce > > Ross > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
