autoconf archive search

1. Is Autotest the right solution? (score: 44)

Author: "Nathaniel D. Sizemore" <sizemore@txcorp.com>

Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:55:53 -0600

Autoconf developers, My organization develops scientific software. Currently for regression testing we have a set of custom scripts that build the source code nightly, run a series of simulations, co

/archive/html/autoconf/2006-05/msg00068.html (9,458 bytes)

2. Re: Is Autotest the right solution? (score: 41)

Author: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>

Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:32:28 +0200

Hi Nathaniel, * Nathaniel D. Sizemore wrote on Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:55:53AM CEST: I can well understand the desire to have these more flexible. Alas, the current Autotest cannot achieve that. What

/archive/html/autoconf/2006-05/msg00069.html (9,084 bytes)

3. Re: Generating Test Suites with Autotest (score: 41)

Author: Noah Misch <noah@cs.caltech.edu>

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:43:16 -0700

The Automake simple test suite support (`info Automake Tests') runs programs named in the `TESTS' Make variable and observes their exit status: 0->success, have some familiarity, those of Automake an

/archive/html/autoconf/2005-06/msg00118.html (8,710 bytes)

4. Autoconf 2.52f (score: 40)

Author: Akim Demaille <akim@epita.fr>

Date: 02 Nov 2001 18:34:05 +0100

There are many small bug fixes, and all the executables have been revamp around autom4te. Autotest is also getting mature, but still lacks some decent documentation. This is the main focus before the

/archive/html/autoconf/2001-11/msg00003.html (44,568 bytes)

5. Re: bug#8044: Automake should support autotest-based testsuites. (score: 39)

Author: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:39:25 +0100

Hello, * Eric Blake wrote on Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 07:44:06PM CET: I agree with this. I should add though, in a sort-of self-advertising mood, that you may want to consider that there are still possib

/archive/html/autoconf/2011-02/msg00086.html (5,930 bytes)

6. Autotest: how stable? (score: 39)

Author: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:19:29 -0700

Autotest seems like a useful test framework. It is more complete for my purposes than the simple framework included with Automake 1.10 (although 1.11 does have a few nice new features), so I'm thinki

/archive/html/autoconf/2009-07/msg00033.html (4,878 bytes)

7. Re: autotest (score: 39)

Author: "Allan Clark" <allanc@chickenandporn.com>

Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:04:59 -0400

I do that using an testsuite.at.in that generates a testsuite.at from autoconf (my nagios-ldap work, for example): configure.in: ... AC_CONFIG_TESTDIR([tests-autotest]) ... AC_SUBST(NAGIOS) ... AC_OU

/archive/html/autoconf/2008-05/msg00057.html (5,236 bytes)

8. Re: bug#8044: Automake should support autotest-based testsuites. (score: 38)

Author: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:44:06 -0700

[adding autoconf] Absolutely! Maybe it's time to nuke that paragraph from the next autoconf release. I think we've built up enough of autoconf's testsuite to promise a stable autotest interface, and

/archive/html/autoconf/2011-02/msg00085.html (6,780 bytes)

9. Re: Autotest: how stable? (score: 38)

Author: Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net>

Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:38:18 -0600

According to Ben Pfaff on 7/16/2009 10:19 PM: That text has already been removed from what will become the 2.64 manual. The implementation is still in some churn (for example, figuring out how to mak

/archive/html/autoconf/2009-07/msg00044.html (5,786 bytes)

10. Re: autotest with a direct path (score: 38)

Author: Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net>

Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 18:47:44 -0600

[Please keep replies on the list, so that others may chime in. Also, top-posting is often considered poor netiquette on mailing lists.] According to Rikki Duncan on 5/15/2008 9:24 AM: Yes, that was m

/archive/html/autoconf/2008-05/msg00041.html (8,381 bytes)

11. Re: distcheck fails with autotest: autom4te: cannot open ../../tests/testsuite.tmp: Permission denied (score: 38)

Author: Benoit SIGOURE <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr>

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 21:07:47 +0100

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 05:08:32PM CET: * Benoit SIGOURE wrote on Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:07:23AM CET: make[3]: Entering directory `/Users/tsuna/svn/git/boost.m4/_build/boost

/archive/html/autoconf/2007-11/msg00014.html (14,187 bytes)

12. Autoconf 2.52d is released (score: 38)

Author: Akim Demaille <akim@epita.fr>

Date: 31 Aug 2001 17:54:52 +0200

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to gnu.misc.discuss as well. There have been many significative changes in Autoconf recently, although most of them should

/archive/html/autoconf/2001-08/msg00187.html (43,938 bytes)

13. Re: Best practice sharing autotest macros (score: 37)

Author: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>

Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:02:02 -0700

Sounds reasonable to me. Sorry, none from me - but do feel free to post what works for you, so we have it in the archives. Yes. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization

/archive/html/autoconf/2013-12/msg00000.html (5,518 bytes)

14. Best practice sharing autotest macros (score: 37)

Author: Luke Mewburn <lukem@NetBSD.org>

Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:32:56 +1100

Hi folks, I've got a few autotest macros that are used across various projects, and I'm looking for advice regardard the best practice in how to share these between the projects. Currently I just cut

/archive/html/autoconf/2013-11/msg00029.html (4,979 bytes)

15. Re: autotest: problem testing daemons, with possible fix (score: 37)

Author: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:47:08 -0800

[Following up on <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2010-11/msg00036.html>, and adding bug-autoconf] Thanks for reporting the problem. I don't know of any reason AT_CHECK wouldn't do that, b

/archive/html/autoconf/2010-11/msg00037.html (7,275 bytes)

16. Re: marking a test in autotest as expected to fail (score: 37)

Author: Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net>

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:58:43 -0700

According to Rikki McQueary on 2/9/2009 3:20 PM: Hello Rikki, AT_EXPR_RESPONSE_TEST_P is not an autotest macro, which means you probably wrote it. If that is the case, please consider changing its na

/archive/html/autoconf/2009-02/msg00026.html (6,762 bytes)

17. Re: autotest/package.m4 question [PATCH] (score: 37)

Author: Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net>

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:43:15 -0600

According to Eric Blake on 10/13/2008 5:55 AM: On the other hand, the sample shows that testsuite, but not package.m4, is listed in EXTRA_DIST. Depending on a generated file, without also distributin

/archive/html/autoconf/2008-10/msg00060.html (12,115 bytes)

18. Re: autotest/package.m4 question [PATCH] (score: 37)

Author: Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net>

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:55:06 -0600

According to William Pursell on 10/13/2008 1:06 AM: Hello William, and thanks for the report. We encourage automake use (many of the autoconf developers also work on automake), but don't require it,

/archive/html/autoconf/2008-10/msg00036.html (7,007 bytes)

19. autotest/package.m4 question [PATCH] (score: 37)

Author: William Pursell <bill.pursell@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:06:48 +0100

I've included a patch here, but mostly just to clarify my questions, so I thought it more appropriate to post here than to autoconf-patches. What is the 'official' gnu position on automake, and what'

/archive/html/autoconf/2008-10/msg00034.html (6,930 bytes)

20. AT_line undefined when trying to use autotest (score: 37)

Author: "Christopher Hulbert" <cchgroupmail@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:18:52 -0500

I'm looking into converting some existing test methods to use autotest. In doing so I ran into a problem that autom4te complained AT_line was undefined. Attached a source tree as minimal as I cared t

/archive/html/autoconf/2008-02/msg00067.html (6,434 bytes)

This search system is powered by Namazu v2.0.21