On 03/09/2014 09:36 AM, Christian Boltz wrote: > Hello, > > Am Freitag, 7. März 2014 schrieb John Johansen: >> So this is a patch I have been using for a while to get around having >> to specify USE_SYSTEM=1 every time I run the tests. Is it worth >> upstreaming and applying to the other Makefiles that currently can >> take USE_SYSTEM as a parameter >> >> If USE_SYSTEM=1 is NOT specified >> it tries to find a local build and if it can't find one, it sets >> USE_SYSTEM=1 and issues a warning message >> If USE_SYSTEM=1 is specified >> it only tries building against the system libraries > > I understand why you like this behaviour, but I don't like it too much > because it introduces some "surprising" behaviour. (And I doubt someone > reads the warning if the test succeeds ;-) > I'm not sure why its a surprising behavior, but okay. Question is who do you see the consumer as?
> > Thinking about it - can you implement an additional condition like > "file common/enable-auto-fallback-to-USE_SYSTEM exists" (or an > environment variable you set in .bashrc, but a file sounds better)? > > That would mean people have to actively opt-in to the automatical > fallback by touch'ing the file once in their bzr checkout. This would > fix the "surprise" part. > > With the opt-in file added, the patch looks good to me. > using a file is possible, but how about opt-out instead? It would be easy to add USE_SYSTEM=0, to opt-out. So if USE_SYSTEM is defined (either 0 or 1) you get one or the other behavior other wise it tries to build against one then the other -- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
