[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Make Python scripts compatible with older versions

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 01:18:40PM +0300, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 08/10/14 14:14, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:49:12AM +0300, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/07/14 20:33, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>> On 08/07/2014 10:57 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 04:17:21PM +0300, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> >>>>> On 08/07/14 13:57, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> ..
> >>>>>> we just need
> >>>>>> /usr/bin/env python2 as how we invoke our scripts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This means impose python version dependency for U-Boot source build?
> >>>>> Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I don't think this is a good
> >>>>> practice...
> >>>>> I think that for tools like buildman, patman, etc. - this is
> >>>>> perfectly fine to impose an interpreter/compiler version, but not
> >>>>> for the basic source builds.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree.  You don't need MAKEALL or buildman to do basic source builds.
> >>>> Doing 'make foo_defconfig' doesn't require re-creating boards.cfg.
> >>>>
> >>>> To me, the gray area is people doing SoC level (or higher) changes that
> >>>> want to be good and test more areas.  That's when MAKEALL or buildman
> >>>> become handy and some sort of win over a shell forloop.
> >>>
> >>> Why on earth isn't relying specifically on either Python2 (with the current script code) or Python3 (after porting the code) a good practice?
> >>
> >> Because I think (I can think this way, right?) it is not a good practice
> >> to bring another host machine dependency (moreover, version dependency)
> >> for the simple source code build (now it also backfired in OE).
> >>
> >>> Banning or replacing the use of Python just because they cleaned up their language seems like poking your eye out to spite your nose (or whatever the expression is). The same thing will happen with Perl, and happened with dtc, etc.
> >>
> >> Did I say ban python or something? No, I did not say that.
> >> What I'm saying is:
> >> Right now, we have compiler dependency (a must as you can't practically
> >> produce any code without it), and we have dtc (a must if you want to
> >> compile dts), and we have make, and we have shell (this one is found
> >> on every host, although windows users have to use cygwin or such,
> >> but who cares, so no problem), and now we also add python to the soup?
> > 
> > Maybe I'm being thick then.  What's the use case you need MAKEALL or
> > buildman for?
> 
> Now, I feel like we are talking about different things...
> I'll try to be a bit more clear on this:
> 
> Simple use case: build U-Boot for a board:
> ================================
> $ make mrproper && make cm_t335_config && make -j12 > /dev/null
>   CLEAN   examples/standalone
>   CLEAN   tools
>   CLEAN   u-boot.lds
>   CLEAN   spl/arch spl/board spl/common spl/disk spl/drivers spl/fs spl/lib spl/spl spl/u-boot-spl spl/u-boot-spl.bin spl/u-boot-spl.lds spl/u-boot-spl.map
>   CLEAN   u-boot.map u-boot.bin u-boot.srec u-boot u-boot.img MLO System.map
>   CLEAN   include/generated spl
>   CLEAN   include/autoconf.mk include/autoconf.mk.dep include/config.h etags
>   HOSTCC  scripts/basic/fixdep
>   GEN     /home/grinberg/bin-temp/u-boot/Makefile
>   File "/home/grinberg/git-repo/u-boot/scripts/multiconfig.py", line 344
>     print "*** Default configuration is based on '%s'" % KBUILD_DEFCONFIG

Ug, crap, OK, I had missed that one.  Masahiro, how hard would it be to
turn multiconfig.py into a bash script?  Or even handle it within make?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20140811/a875cb28/attachment.pgp>