On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 09:41 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> I'm sending this as an RFC. I know the patch works, but I think it
> highlights
> a potentially larger issue in the system.
>
> If we're processing data using shell pipes, the return code of a
> failed
> process may end up being lost -- avoid
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:41 AM Mark Hatle wrote:
> I'm sending this as an RFC. I know the patch works, but I think it
> highlights
> a potentially larger issue in the system.
>
> If we're processing data using shell pipes, the return code of a failed
> process may end up being lost -- avoiding t
(Had someone ask me where the patch is..)
Our wonderful corporate mail server sucks.. so the thread didn't get attached
with the patch.
This is the cover letter, the patch has the subject:
[RFC][PATCH] buildhistory.bbclass: Break up the find to catch failures
--Mark
On 2/9/16 9:41 AM, Mark Hatl
I'm sending this as an RFC. I know the patch works, but I think it highlights
a potentially larger issue in the system.
If we're processing data using shell pipes, the return code of a failed
process may end up being lost -- avoiding the regular error capture when
bitbake runs a task.
In this pa
