[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Make Python scripts compatible with older versions

[Tom Rini]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20140807/e6e8298d/attachment.pgp>