On 08/13/2012 10:39 AM, Anthony Petrov wrote: > The test looks great, and I like that it doesn't depend on the JAWT > machinery, but tests the actual problematic RPATH entry only.
I generally go for tests that verify behaviour (that jawt-linked programs are working) rather than implementation details (which changed, for example, when we switched from LD_LIBRARY_PATH to RPATHS). > +1 from me. Yes, good to have something that guards us from changing something unintentionally. Looks fine to me too. Cheers, Omair
