> > My attempt with building out-of-tree with your suggested work-around > > failed as well, now the ffsb complains about the "all" target... > > Strange, it worked for me after doing out of tree configure and then > configure in the ffsb directory...
Maybe I didn't build a clean build as I thought, or did things the wrong way... Regardless, in-tree build works at least. > > A question though: Why do you see a need for supporting builds > > in-tree? Can't we just concentrate on supporting out-of-tree and > > thereby cut down on the test matrix? > > There are no technical obstacles to that but there are user > expectations, 99% of software builds software in tree and being > different is something that may hurt software adoption. I guess you're right. The Linux kernel is probably one of the last bastions where in-tree builds actually works better than out-of-tree builds, which probably translate into an expectation that LTP works best with in-tree builds. It's just such a pain with all those derived files mixed with versioned ones, which I guess is why you want out-of-tree builds to work as well. /Mats ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
