From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 23:37:44 +0200
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v3 2/9] testing/infra/builder: split
 configure() from build()
In-Reply-To: <5ac14fd11a596_e002ac6eaeaec8891974@ultri4.mail>
References: <20180401195916.29aac7e1@windsurf>
 <5ac14fd11a596_e002ac6eaeaec8891974@ultri4.mail>
Message-ID: <20180401233744.70b453d7@windsurf>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

Hello,

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 18:32:01 -0300, Ricardo Martincoski wrote:

> It is possible to do that.
> 
> The next patch on the same series uses .update() so the local "env" is changed.
>         env = {"PATH": os.environ["PATH"]}
>         env.update(make_extra_env)
> 
> Note: I did not tested the code below.
> 
> In order to always have a clean environment, we could do in the constructor:
>         self.env = {"PATH": os.environ["PATH"]}
> And change the methods to:
>         env = self.env.copy()
>         env.update(make_extra_env)
> 
> Or we assume we will need only PATH from env in the future, and do in the
> constructor:
>         self.env_path = os.environ["PATH"]
> And change the methods to:
>         env = self.make_extra_env.copy()
>         env.update({"PATH": self.env_path})
> 
> The access to os.environ should be inexpensive (I did not measured it), so I am
> not sure it needs to be done. I am not against it either.
> At first glance, it seems just more code to me.
> Maybe I am missing something.

Hum, indeed. Let's see what it gives with the next patches, and we can
always adjust that kind of details later.

Thanks for your feedback!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com