On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 09:45:13AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ke, 2015-04-08 at 14:56 +0100, Thomas Wood wrote:
> > Use the pkglibexec and pkgdata prefixes rather than setting bindir and
> > datadir. This also removes the extra 'tests' directory from within the
> > package libexec and data directories.
> >
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Wood <thomas.wood@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tests/Makefile.am | 15 +++++++++++----
> > tests/Makefile.sources | 15 ---------------
> > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/Makefile.am b/tests/Makefile.am
> > index d6de373..dc864f4 100644
> > --- a/tests/Makefile.am
> > +++ b/tests/Makefile.am
> > @@ -27,18 +27,25 @@ multi-tests.txt: Makefile.sources
> > @echo ${multi_kernel_tests} >> $@
> > @echo END TESTLIST >> $@
> >
> > -igt_tests_bin_PROGRAMS += \
> > +noinst_PROGRAMS = \
> > + $(HANG) \
> > + $(TESTS_testsuite) \
> > + $(NULL)
> > +
> > +pkglibexec_PROGRAMS = \
> > + gem_alive \
> > + gem_stress \
> > $(TESTS_progs) \
> > $(TESTS_progs_M) \
> > $(NULL)
>
> Reasoning for the tests directory was that if the tests just sit under
> pkglibexec, they might be mistaken for tools (as the i-g-t package name
> suggests) by packagers or really anybody.
>
> If it's so important not to have the tests directory, I'd rather suffix
> all the programs with "_test" during build. It would cause some
> cascading changes too, so why do you want to get rid of the tests
> directory in the first place?
Imo libexec is a sufficient hint that this is internal stuff that we don't
need to add a prefix or subdir.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
