From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7A67413A for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:32:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t5GEWssY013718; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:32:54 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id F5N_YLRgAxPB; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:32:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t5GEWffM013709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:32:53 +0100 Message-ID: <1434465161.19270.17.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Changhyeok Bae Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:32:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: <022401d0a7f5$f1102e60$d3308b20$@lge.com> References: <1433826505-23893-1-git-send-email-changhyeok.bae@lge.com> <1434351291.28975.265.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <022401d0a7f5$f1102e60$d3308b20$@lge.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.10-0ubuntu1~14.10.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=EC=9D=B4=EB=AA=85=EA=B5=AC?= , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] {python, python3}-native: fix TypeError 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: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:33:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 14:33 +0900, Changhyeok Bae wrote: > Doesn't this mean BUILD_SYS or HOST_SYS weren't set in the environment? > -> You're right. The default env value of BUILD_SYS and HOST_SYS is "" (empty). > -> I wonder that the original patch (12-distutils-prefix-is-inside-staging-area.patch) to add is required? > > Wouldn't this patch just mean you get a value of something like "None"? > -> My patch is to prevent errors in runtime. > -> Do you have any other good idea? My concern is that just having a value of "None" means the code trying to use this variable will probably do the wrong thing. We should try and fix the underlying problem of BUILD_SYS bot being set when it should be, rather than just hide the runtime error. How you do that depends on when the runtime error is occurring which I know little about... Cheers, Richard