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 05A04770E7 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:01:45 +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 t9GA1f0b030766; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:01:41 +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 CwOJq0fyp9MV; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:01:41 +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 t9GA1SKC030744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:01:39 +0100 Message-ID: <1444989688.17974.1.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Benjamin Esquivel Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:01:28 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1444930021-4096-1-git-send-email-benjamin.esquivel@linux.intel.com> References: <1444930021-4096-1-git-send-email-benjamin.esquivel@linux.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] populate SDK: prepare calling of bb.utils for exceptions 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, 16 Oct 2015 10:01:47 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 12:27 -0500, Benjamin Esquivel wrote: > + if (bb.utils.movefile(sourcefile, destdir) == None): > + raise Exception("moving {} to {} failed".format( > + sourcefile, destdir)) Its a minor issue, however rightly or wrongly, the vast majority of the code base uses "xxx %s %s" % (var, var2) instead of .format(). Is there a reason we should be using the latter as for consistency, the former would seem to make things more standardised? Cheers, Richard