<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 22 February 2016 at 16:37, Aníbal Limón <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anibal.limon@linux.intel.com" target="_blank">anibal.limon@linux.intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow:hidden">I agree with you to modify avoid_paths_in_environ for return the new<br>
PATH variable is better than only modify it internally but for<br>
simplicity i will maintain the os.environ['PATH'] set/restore instead of<br>
generate the environment line.<br>
<div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>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.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Ross</div></div>