On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 15:52 +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Alex Elder wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 09:14 +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: . . . > > I think the use of "bc" to do certain math operations > > has some value, and as such I think the right fix is > > just to require "bc" in order for xfstests, or at least > > for any that use the _math() function, and drop the > > fall-back logic out of the definition of _math(). > > > > What do you think? > > Yes I had the same concern, but I guess I was just lazy to look at it > :). So if we can require "bc" for xfstests we can simply remove the > fallback. Also maybe adding helper _require_bc, or maybe even better > adding helper _require <whatever> so we can check for <whatever> tool > in any test. Would you mind re-submitting the first patch (which defined the _math() function), adding the definition of _require_math which would be used in any script that uses the _math function? That would fail if "bc" weren't available. It seems indirect but I think _require_math makes more sense in the context of whoever would be using it than _require_bc would. And having heard nobody voice objection to the idea I think we should just go with it. I can take your other patch and insert the _require_math call for you, and will verify the result works before committing it. Thanks. -Alex _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
