search for: 6e832106

On Mon, 22 Dec, at 04:51:19PM, Gene Cumm wrote: > > Commit 6e832106 which originally created the shell scripts was the > first instance of this silencing. > > Aside from adding a few hundred lines of build output (which could be > beneficial), is there any reason not to remove the null redirects? There's no downside that I can see. Go for it. --...

...$ARCH "$objdir" > /dev/null 2>&1 > + ../../efi/build-gnu-efi.sh $ARCH "$objdir" > if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then > printf "Failed to build gnu-efi. " > printf "Execute the following command for full details: \n\n" Commit 6e832106 which originally created the shell scripts was the first instance of this silencing. Aside from adding a few hundred lines of build output (which could be beneficial), is there any reason not to remove the null redirects? -- -Gene

> On Mon, 22 Dec, at 04:51:19PM, Gene Cumm wrote: > > > > Commit 6e832106 which originally created the shell scripts was the > > first instance of this silencing. > > > > Aside from adding a few hundred lines of build output (which could be > > beneficial), is there any reason not to remove the null redirects? > > There's no downside t...

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Dec, at 04:51:19PM, Gene Cumm wrote: >> > >> > Commit 6e832106 which originally created the shell scripts was the >> > first instance of this silencing. >> > >> > Aside from adding a few hundred lines of build output (which could be >> > beneficial), is there any reason not to remove the null redirects? >> >> The...

The build would be failed and exit if build-gnu-efi.sh is failed, so we'd better not suppress the output of build-gnu-efi.sh, which is good for debugging. Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang at windriver.com> --- efi/check-gnu-efi.sh | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/efi/check-gnu-efi.sh b/efi/check-gnu-efi.sh index 85305f8..7d99e9a 100755 ---