On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 11:33:35AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 08/07/2014 10:57 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 04:17:21PM +0300, Igor Grinberg wrote: > >>On 08/07/14 13:57, Tom Rini wrote: > .. > >>>we just need > >>>/usr/bin/env python2 as how we invoke our scripts. > >> > >>This means impose python version dependency for U-Boot source build? > >>Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I don't think this is a good > >>practice... > >>I think that for tools like buildman, patman, etc. - this is > >>perfectly fine to impose an interpreter/compiler version, but not > >>for the basic source builds. > > > >I agree. You don't need MAKEALL or buildman to do basic source builds. > >Doing 'make foo_defconfig' doesn't require re-creating boards.cfg. > > > >To me, the gray area is people doing SoC level (or higher) changes that > >want to be good and test more areas. That's when MAKEALL or buildman > >become handy and some sort of win over a shell forloop. > > Why on earth isn't relying specifically on either Python2 (with the > current script code) or Python3 (after porting the code) a good > practice?
We can and should (and will) rely on python2 (or python3, but probably 2 due to RHEL/CentOS5/Ubuntu 10.04) to fix the first problem here that cropped up, of /usr/bin/env python being not the best idea. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
