Hello Akim, * Akim Demaille wrote on Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:14:39PM CEST: > >>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sorry for answering so late...
No problem. > So I would like to be able to write something like > > TEST_SUITES = foo bar > foo_TESTS = foo1.chk foo2.test foo3 > bar_TESTS = bar1.test bar2.sh bar3.c > > and be able to write on the side rules explaining how to .chk -> .log, > .test -> .log etc. Sounds useful. > Maybe instead of _TESTS we could reuse _SOURCES? That's not > inconsistent: they are really sources which must be compiled into > *.log files which are then linked together to produce foo.log and > bar.log. Hmm. That would prevent us to name test suites after programs. As I understand your proposal above, that would be intended though. Dunno if that may be a bit difficult to understand. > > I guess as a first approximation it would be ok to do without. The > > awk script may require a bit of work for Solaris; I'd just drop the > > colors; > > Nah, please, let's keep them, it's really very useful! I don't remember whether you turned them off for non-terminal output, but it should be configurable, and default to on only for terminal output. > > and also it would need adjustment for Sun make's gigantic VPATH > > rewriting feature; 'TEST_LOGS ?=' would need to be replaced by an > > override done at 'automake' time. > > Sure, but who's going to spend some time on this? Which of the two? The Sun make adjustments are typically not hard. The ?= is really GNU make specific. Cheers, Ralf
