[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#19961: check-local is kind of like check-hook
From: |
Mike Frysinger |
Subject: |
bug#19961: check-local is kind of like check-hook |
Date: |
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 22:59:44 -0500 |
On 02 Mar 2015 13:17, Shahbaz Youssefi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Peter Johansson wrote:
> > On 02/28/2015 02:07 AM, Shahbaz Youssefi wrote:
> >>
> >> To align this with the other -local rules, why not generate it like this?
> >>
> >> check-am: all-am check-local
> >> $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) check-TESTS
> >
> > I think it would be a mistake to change this rule. Some projects might rely
> > on the fact that 'check-local' depends on 'all-am' and 'check-local' might
> > e.g. run some of the programs built within 'all-am'.
>
> Fair enough. Wouldn't something like this address that issue?
>
> check-local: all-am
>
> check-am: check-local
> $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) check-TESTS
should be doable to add check-hook (to support people who want to run at the
end) and to add check-local (to support people who want to run early).
although i think the right answer for you specifically is what Peter already
suggested -- use an existing check_XXX primary instead.
> > With my Automake the rule looks like:
> >
> > check-am: all-am
> > $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) $(check_SCRIPTS) $(check_DATA)
> > $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) check-TESTS check-local
> >
> > so you could move your check_kernelmodule into check_DATA with something
> > like (untested)
> >
> > check_DATA = kernelmodule.timestamp
> >
> > kernelmodule.timestamp:
> > @echo "*******************************************"
> > @echo "*******************************************"
> > @echo "I want this to be called before the check"
> > @echo "*******************************************"
> > @echo "*******************************************"
> >
>
> Ok, I haven't seen check_DATA before (is that new in Automake 1.15?).
no, it's been around for a very long time -- at least since Automake 1.5
from Aug 2001. i didn't dive deeper in the source beyond that.
> This could be a solution of course, although a bit strange, since the
> kernel module is not really "data".
sure, but out of all the primaries Automake understands, what would you call
it ? a program ? a script ? a library ? from userspace pov, it might as
well just be "data". i don't think adding support for LINUXKERNELMODULE makes
that much sense since it's not portable (beyond Linux), no one has asked for
it, and the way a kernel module is built is veeeery tightly coupled with the
exact version of Linux that you're building.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- bug#19961: check-local is kind of like check-hook,
Mike Frysinger <=