From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAEC46C801 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:04:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B19421801; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:04:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:04:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references :content-type:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=247RgznH2jXV4bmGCSjKgo oFgvw=; b=OABJevVLIKEswk0a/30IjLUc1HnCJtAv2ouPFBLWUb3io+L1eDQH15 Qe67VjI+sMDtw6CY5rrN+MlzsUau5NvRBqj9RvXZKa4CgzgBHOleoy5DMYMJeqhm /+bwT394ZUYLzlqSf6v2CfOdA17D0P/bx/6ke/zn5Bugvv+XmoQms= X-Sasl-enc: L6FUtON0IZiKIIoHBzgg0NNLuptW1uhMwp43bohiFW2i 1379693056 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [66.31.18.51]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4E33E6804EE; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:04:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Colin Walters To: Paul Eggleton In-Reply-To: <1379688225-29241-1-git-send-email-paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> References: <1379688225-29241-1-git-send-email-paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:04:15 -0400 Message-ID: <1379693055.1665.9.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-26.el6) Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] glib-2.0: fix broken python script header on machines using buildtools X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 20 Sep 2013 16:04:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 15:43 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > it also seems sensible to do > this for native as well instead of explicitly trying to exclude that > case. But someone presumably introduced the explicit special case for native for a reason, I'd expect some blame analysis to be done here to determine whether those reasons were bogus or not.