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
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com 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
On 12/30/2013 04:44 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com 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
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com skribis:
On 12/30/2013 04:44 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com skribis:
On 12/29/2013 10:49 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
However, in general, I think packages should not rely on hardcoded file
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? What do
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), and
