Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: "make check" with libzsh (e.g. FreeBSD)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 14692
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: PATCH: "make check" with libzsh (e.g. FreeBSD)
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:04:33 +0000
- In-reply-to: <Pine.SV4.4.33.0106031239260.19014-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <Pine.SV4.4.33.0106031239260.19014-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Jun 3, 12:40pm, Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: "make check" with libzsh (e.g. FreeBSD)
}
} On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Bart Schaefer wrote:
}
} > This is hardly ever going to be a problem except for someone who is
} > trying to keep up with individual patches.
}
} And these are exactly those who need tests :-)
Actually, I was thinking that the tests are really needed by people who
are building on a new platform for the first time. The developers are
more likely to know what they're doing -- for example, as of right now,
you can't run "make check" for a static build without knowing that you
have to change the default linkage of zpty.
In any case, *re*compiling with a different LD_RUN_PATH doesn't seem to
be an option. We could, however, compile two different zsh binaries --
e.g., zsh and zsh-test -- and use the zsh-test binary for "make check".
On systems without libzsh, zsh-test could just be a link to zsh, but
where libzsh was needed, it'd be a separate binary with LD_RUN_PATH set
to the build directory.
Then we'd have to update the tests to always run zsh-test rather than
just zsh. We'd still need an LD_LIBRARY_PATH patch in Test/Makefile.in
for systems that don't use an LD_RUN_PATH.
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author