Hello Marek,
I think, we have to stop the discussion now, because it is not leading
into any conclusion. Anyway, both of us have a different opinion.
Maybe rewriting into python will solve it, I won't do that.
Cheers,
Andrej
On Wed, 2022-02-02 at 09:17 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 2/2/22 07:51, Valek, Andrej wrote:
> > Marek,
>
> Hello Andrej,
>
> > Sorry, but these are still not an arguments, why to do that.
>
> I'm sorry, I am lost and confused ... what part of the email are you
> referring to ?
>
> > On Mon, 2022-01-31 at 10:39 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On 1/31/22 08:01, Valek, Andrej wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Hello Andrej,
> > >
> > > (please avoid top-posting)
> > >
> > > > Sorry, but personally I don't like your idea. What's the
> > > > benefit of
> > > > reverting this? I would keep the ${} for bitbake and $ for
> > > > shell. The
> > > > {} has to be placed only for variables like $a${b}c.
> > >
> > > That's exactly the benefit of using ${} in shell scripts
> > > consistently -
> > > -
> > > you don't have to worry about variable names being accidentally
> > > conflated with surrounding strings, either due to your own
> > > mistake, or
> > > some automated transformation that was applied incorrectly .
> > >
> > > > We should respect the workflow on all recipes otherwise we're
> > > > braking
> > > > the "unwritten" rules.
> > >
> > > The workflow on all recipes ? What does this mean ?
> > >
> > > broken by people. Better update the documentation.
> > >
> > > There is one technical counter-argument to this revert from
> > > Peter,
> > > quote:
> > > "
> > > There is actually a technical reason to not use ${foo} for shell
> > > variables unless necessary in bitbake files and it is because
> > > bitbake will treat them all as potential bitbake variables. This
> > > means they are unnecessarily included in the taskhashes that
> > > bitbake calculates.
> > > "
> > >
> > > But the patch being reverted here addresses the problem only
> > > partly,
> > > because it still contains remnants like this:
> > > "
> > > conf_desc="$conf_desc${sep}setup"
> > > "
> > Just for your information, this is not remnants, this is exactly
> > the
> > right {} usage. If you didn't place the {}, it will be
> > conf_desc="$conf_desc$sepsetup", which doesn't make any sense.
>
> OK, one more time then.
>
> Either your patch attempted to change the coding style of this script
> to
> match your personal preference, and did it only partly, so the result
> is
> inconsistent.
>
> Or
>
> You were fixing the aforementioned taskhash issue, in which case the
> taskhash issue is also fixed only partly.
>
> The commit message is not clear on what the intention was.
>
> [...]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#161187):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/161187
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/88758521/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
