On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 16:45, Joshua Watt <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW: I know that is in the same style as the assimp test, but I always > thought the test should have been called the "cmake" test, since that > is what we actually care about (not specifically that it can build > assimp; any cmake package could have been used AFAIK). > > Perhaps this should break that trend and be called the "meson" test?
My worry was that in the future we'd add another recipe that used cmake/meson to exercise some other codepaths, and then we'd have the cmake.py and cmake2.py. At least by using the upstream name, it's clear what is actually being tested. Ross -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
