<div dir="ltr">But shouldn't it at least show different error message in case when ${S}/waf doesn't exist and when it fails to execute it for whatever reason?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Burton, Ross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ross.burton@intel.com" target="_blank">ross.burton@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 dir="ltr"><span class="">On 31 January 2018 at 17:07, Martin Jansa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin.jansa@gmail.com" target="_blank">martin.jansa@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">What about the recipes which don't have ${S}/waf at all (and might inherit waf from possibly wrong reasons), like all those waf-samba recipes mentioned before?</div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>If a recipe inherits waf but doesn't use waf I'm absolutely fine with it erroring out. Its always bothered me that autotools.bbclass doesn't object if configure can't be found.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Ross</div></font></span></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>