On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 06:06:27PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:21 AM Molloy, Philip <philip-mol...@idexx.com> > wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2019-05-05 at 08:50 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > > Conceptually, yes, this is correct. However, the behavior in > > > question > > > has been deployed for so long that I don't feel that we can change it > > > at > > > this point, so I'm going to NAK this. Sorry. > > I certainly understand that constraint even though it has caused a fair > > amount of trouble. For a little more context please see an e-mail I > > sent to the Buildroot mailing list.[1] > > > > How about as a compromise fw_printenv still prints the same output, but > > it returns an exit code > 0 when doing so? > > Are you worried about the change to the exit code here? Are you > thinking there are some utilities that depend on it not erroring in > this case? > > If so, perhaps we can add a switch to the utility to have it actually > error in this case. If that's not a concern, maybe we can do it > without a switch. > > It would also be great to hear wdenx input.
Yes, my concern is scripts that either explicitly or implicitly depend on the current behavior. Making a new behavior with a flag seems fine to me. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
