On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Martin Pitt <martin.pitt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Lucas, > > Lucas De Marchi [2012-07-09 16:54 -0300]: >> You might want to look into kmod's testsuite. We do exactly that and >> until there's a better alternative I plan to support this for newer >> glibcs. > > Thanks for pointing out! I'll do that. When it fails with a newer > glibc, we should get test case failures and thus it should be rather > obvious where things need fixing. > > I guess that still means we'd either need a libudev-test.so or a shell > wrapper and the libpath.so thing around all tests, and thus > build/ship the two as part of a libudev install. That's something > which I considered to be more ugly, but if Kay prefers that, I'll look > into this. It's part of my "make check" running the testsuite. > >> When I implemented that I tried what you are trying now and it didn't >> look right and it's ugly to touch all the calls with path strings and >> also very error prone. > > libudev already has something like that, it has the TEST_PREFIX macro > everywhere. So I don't think it's actually getting much worse, but > with a preloaded library we wouldn't need the TEST_PREFIX thing any > more either. > > So the trade is "add the get_prefix() calls to the path name build > calls" vs. "maintain/build/install a preload library". I never ever install that, and doing so is just wrong IMO. Just make it part of the "make check". The final user is not supposed to be running a testsuite. Lucas De Marchi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
