Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:42:31PM +0200, Chris Lalancette wrote:
>> While running make check, I noticed that it was actually using
>> the virsh binary from my system, in /usr/bin/virsh, and not the
>> one that was just compiled. This is actually caused by a bug
>> in Make
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:42:31PM +0200, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> While running make check, I noticed that it was actually using
> the virsh binary from my system, in /usr/bin/virsh, and not the
> one that was just compiled. This is actually caused by a bug
> in Makefile.am, where we didn't upda
While running make check, I noticed that it was actually using
the virsh binary from my system, in /usr/bin/virsh, and not the
one that was just compiled. This is actually caused by a bug
in Makefile.am, where we didn't update the PATH to include tools.
While here, I also updated all of the scrip
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:33:58AM +0200, Chris Lalancette wrote:
>> While running make check, I noticed that it was actually using
>> the virsh binary from my system, in /usr/bin/virsh, and not the
>> one that was just compiled. This doesn't seem to be the intent,
>> s
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:33:58AM +0200, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> While running make check, I noticed that it was actually using
> the virsh binary from my system, in /usr/bin/virsh, and not the
> one that was just compiled. This doesn't seem to be the intent,
> so I changed all of the test scri
While running make check, I noticed that it was actually using
the virsh binary from my system, in /usr/bin/virsh, and not the
one that was just compiled. This doesn't seem to be the intent,
so I changed all of the test scripts to point to the one built
in-tree, not the system one.
Signed-off-by:
