[OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] oe-init-build-env, scripts/oe-buildenv-internal: add error detecting for $BDIR

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 06:37 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 05:07 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 21:06 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08/02/2011 04:43 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 14:08 +0800, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> >>>> [YOCTO #671]
> >>>>
> >>>> "readlink -f" in Ubuntu 10.04 is buggy: it doesn't ignore a trailing / (e.g.,
> >>>> "readlink -f /tmp/non-existent-dir/" returns nothing, but according to
> >>>> http://www.gnu.org/s/coreutils/manual/coreutils.pdf it should do that --
> >>>> hence we get bug 671. It seems Ubuntu 10.10 or even later Ubuntu 11.04,
> >>>> and other Linux distributions(e.g., Open Suse 11.4) haven't such an issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I think we should detect this and ask Ubuntu 10.04 users to avoid supply
> >>>> a path with trailing slash here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Moreever, I also add the detection of non-existent path, e.g.,
> >>>> source oe-init-build-env /non-existent-dir/build
> >>>> can be detected and we'll print an error msg.
> >>>> And, if we get errors in oe-buildenv-internal, we should stop the script
> >>>> and shouldn't further run.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <dexuan.cui at intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> Merged to master, thanks.
> >>
> >> For a patch to address a relatively benign bug I thought the standard
> >> procedure would be for it to await feedback for more than 5 hours. I was
> >> hoping to have an opportunity to review this fix as I was working with
> >> the team in root causing the bug.
> > 
> > It is near impossible for me to tell who (if anyone) is working jointly
> > on an issue or expecting to review a patch. All I see are the complaints
> > when things don't merge promptly or something less than ideal merges too
> > soon (i.e. I can't win) :(.
> 
> 
> In this case I was trying to refer back to what I had understood to be
> the norm (waiting for 24 hours) to allow for feedback. I know it wasn't
> a hard rule, but I didn't see any degree of urgency with this patch. If
> your process is different than my understanding, please correct my
> thinking so I know what to expect going forward. If not, then the above
> is just meant as a friendly reminder that I, at least, am operating
> under the assumption that patches will have a 24 hour review window
> unless there is a pressing need to merge them sooner.

Fair comment, its a 24 hour guideline and I thought that patch was safe
enough :/. I'll try and ensure I don't do that again.

Cheers,

Richard