[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PPL-devel] Re: Doing something just a bit more complex than `make c
Re: [PPL-devel] Re: Doing something just a bit more complex than `make check'
Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:11:36 +0100
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050929 Thunderbird/1.0.7 Fedora/1.0.7-1.1.fc4 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Ah, ok. A couple of comments. First, a bug I introduced by giving a
non-complete example: Some `make' implementations will not allow you to
override a macro on the command line iff it is also set in the Makefile.
With `TESTS', that is the case in your script. Portable would be
TESTS='...' make -e check
but `make -e' has its share of problems, too, depending on your
environment (same issue with the other variables, of course). Another
point where Autotest is more flexible.
Furthermore, you write
| check_PROGRAMS=$(MAKEFLAGS='' make -s print_check_PROGRAMS)
which I assume you need to avoid clutter in the output. I know many
systems where it is very useful to override the `make' command used,
so $MAKE would probably be better here and elsewhere in the script
(unless that interferes with clutter in the output), e.g. to be able
to use a make that allows macro override on the command line.
Thanks a lot, Ralf. I have done as you suggest.
Then, a comment to the Makefile.am: you don't need the lines
| srcdir = @srcdir@
| VPATH = @VPATH@
| SUBDIRS =
automake will take care of that by itself.
abs_srcdir = @abs_srcdir@
* Roberto Bagnara wrote on Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 06:12:06PM CET:
Autotest looks attractive. We may consider switching to it as soon
as it stabilizes.
The next Autoconf release should have a decently usable version of it.
I look forward to it.
Prof. Roberto Bagnara
Computer Science Group
Department of Mathematics, University of Parma, Italy