Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:52:16PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <[email protected]> > > Hmm, well, you are fond of splitting Makefiles and everything > else is already split so I don't mind. > >> --- a/Makefile >> +++ b/Makefile >> @@ -181,13 +181,7 @@ uninstall-data: >> >> -clean:: testclean >> +clean:: > > What's the benefit of moving the dependency to the subdirectory Makefile?
Keeping everything test related in one place. >> @@ -201,119 +195,7 @@ distclean:: >> >> -check: test checkheaders > > I'm not sure that target should be moved to tests/, checkheaders is not > defined there. Good point. >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/Makefile >> @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ >> +include $(SRC_PATH_BARE)/tests/fate.mak >> +include $(SRC_PATH_BARE)/tests/fate2.mak >> + >> +include $(SRC_PATH_BARE)/tests/fate/aac.mak >> +include $(SRC_PATH_BARE)/tests/fate/als.mak >> +include $(SRC_PATH_BARE)/tests/fate/fft.mak >> +include $(SRC_PATH_BARE)/tests/fate/h264.mak >> +include $(SRC_PATH_BARE)/tests/fate/mp3.mak >> +include $(SRC_PATH_BARE)/tests/fate/vorbis.mak >> +include $(SRC_PATH_BARE)/tests/fate/vp8.mak > > unrelated: > > include $(SRC_PATH_BARE)/tests/fate/*.mak Bad idea. >> +FATE = $(FATE_ACODEC) \ >> + $(FATE_VCODEC) \ >> + $(FATE_LAVF) \ >> + $(FATE_LAVFI) \ >> + $(FATE_SEEK) \ > > extra karma: Maybe you can cut down on that silly amount of whitespace > while moving the line anyway. Does it bother you? >> +ifdef SAMPLES >> +FATE += $(FATE_TESTS) > > unrelated: This reminds me that I'd prefer for SAMPLES to be renamed to > FATE_SAMPLES, just as the environment variable. Why? Do you enjoy typing? -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
