tags 16302 + patch
severity 16302 minor
stop
On 12/30/2013 03:48 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
> Hi all,
>
Hi Akim.
> I have this piece of software with several APIs, organized in clear
> layers. Building the whole package is costly, especially because of
> the top-level layers (dozens of binaries),
Stefano Lattarini skribis:
> On 12/30/2013 09:55 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
>> [MEGA-SNIP]
>>
>> No; I’m asking because the tests specifically refer to /bin/rm.
>> What’s the reason?
>>
> Copying from my first reply:
>
> Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Would it be possible to change these t
On 12/30/2013 09:55 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
> [MEGA-SNIP]
>
> No; I’m asking because the tests specifically refer to /bin/rm.
> What’s the reason?
>
Copying from my first reply:
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Would it be possible to change these tests to use ‘rm’
> instead of /bin/rm?
Stefano Lattarini skribis:
> On 12/30/2013 04:44 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Stefano Lattarini skribis:
>>
>>> On 12/29/2013 10:49 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
However, in general, I think packages should not rely on hardcoded file
names, and instead use AC_PATH_PROG
On 12/30/2013 04:44 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini skribis:
>
>> On 12/29/2013 10:49 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> However, in general, I think packages should not rely on hardcoded file
>>> names, and instead use AC_PATH_PROG or similar mechanisms to get the
>>> ri
Stefano Lattarini skribis:
> On 12/29/2013 10:49 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
>> However, in general, I think packages should not rely on hardcoded file
>> names, and instead use AC_PATH_PROG or similar mechanisms to get the
>> right file name.
>>
> Not in this case. The test is a "spy" ch
Hi all,
I have this piece of software with several APIs, organized in clear
layers. Building the whole package is costly, especially because of
the top-level layers (dozens of binaries), and the whole test suite
is even costlier (because it requires to build the whole set of binaries,
and then it
