On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 01:51:02PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 04:45:14PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Modern gdbm-devel packages bundle together gdbm.h and ndbm.h. > > The old m4 macro had detection support for some old gdbm libraries > > but not for new ones. > > > > We fix compilation of src/dbtest.c by making the autoconf helper > > check for this new arrangement: > > > > If both gdbm.h and gdbm.h are found define set both gdbm_ndbm_=true, > ^^^^^^ ndbm.h? > > and have_db=true, and define HAVE_GDBM_H. The src/dbtest.c already > > had a HAVE_GDBM_H but there was never a respective autoconf settter for > > it. We can just re-use this and fix it for new arrangement. > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This looks fine to me. > > The only system I have by hand that have both <gdbm.h> and <ndbm.h> but > not any <gdbm/[gn]dbm.h> is openSUSE Tumbleweed. Indeed, openSUSE and SLE releases. > Without this patch, > dbtest was not built on openSUSE, and was built successfully with this > patch applied. Yeap. > And dbtest is still built on RHEL6/7 and Fedora. Feel free to modify the commit log accordingly then. Curious, what packages does Fedora/ RHEL6/7 use for the requirement here? We just have one: $ rpm -ql gdbm-devel-1.12-1.282.x86_64 /usr/bin/gdbm_dump /usr/bin/gdbm_load /usr/bin/gdbmtool /usr/include/dbm.h /usr/include/gdbm.h /usr/include/ndbm.h /usr/lib64/libgdbm.a /usr/lib64/libgdbm.so /usr/lib64/libgdbm_compat.a /usr/lib64/libgdbm_compat.so /usr/lib64/libndbm.a /usr/lib64/libndbm.so /usr/share/info/gdbm.info.gz /usr/share/man/man1/gdbm_dump.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/gdbm_load.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/gdbmtool.1.gz /usr/share/man/man3/gdbm.3.gz > BTW, I'll queue patch 3 and this patch for next fstests release, while > other patches seem not necessary, I think patch 2 is fine too. > I agreed with Dave that groups are not > for excluding tests, the required tools and environments should be > detected by tests and _notrun if not met. Yeah makes sense now. I think we should also document when adding a group makes sense as well. > (The README change looks fine, > but it doesn't apply due to the "fsgqa-381" change, so I drop it too for > now.) Feel free to modify it, its not a big deal. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
