From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SSdid-0005yx-77 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:28:27 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4B0IXLG018674 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 01:18:33 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 18550-02 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 01:18:28 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4B0IOrn018664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 01:18:25 +0100 Message-ID: <1336695503.2494.179.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 01:18:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20120510190341.0edbf19f@wrlaptop> References: <8c6c132129d83dca4e5b88a642126901c32a78de.1336691544.git.mark.hatle@windriver.com> <20120510190341.0edbf19f@wrlaptop> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sstate.bbclass: Improve sstate_installpkg performance X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 00:28:27 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 19:03 -0500, Peter Seebach wrote: > On Thu, 10 May 2012 18:13:38 -0500 > Mark Hatle wrote: > > > + sstate_hardcode_cmd = "sed -e 's:^:%s:g' %s | xargs %s" % > > (sstateinst, fixmefn, sstate_sed_cmd) > > How confident are we that the file names can never have whitespace in > them? Fairly since there are 101 other places this would have broken first. The day autotools thinks about supporting that, we might start to think about it too. Until then there is little point in worrying about it. Cheers, Richard