On 02/22/2016 10:48 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 22 February 2016 at 16:37, Aníbal Limón <anibal.limon@linux.intel.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I agree with you to modify avoid_paths_in_environ for return the new
>> PATH variable is better than only modify it internally but for
>> simplicity i will maintain the os.environ['PATH'] set/restore instead of
>> generate the environment line.
>>
> 
> Totally agree with Randy here for what it's worth.  The environment-munging
> code in avoid_paths... should return the strings instead of manipulating
> the current environment so the caller has the choice whether to modify the
> current environment or pass a new environment to subprocess.  And in
> general I'd say that passing modified environments to subprocess is a
> cleaner solution as it means that there's no way cleanup can fail to
> happen.  Whilst that's just a try/except now, the code could get copied and
> extended and end up with codepaths that don't hit the right cleanup.  By
> having an explicit environment passed in, this isn't possible.

Agree, now modified at,

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=alimon/esdk_update_v2&id=3143bf09130c52cd71e3f2f9795208e17152005d

Cheers,
	alimon

> 
> Ross
>