The $(TESTS) variable is defined in file 'tests/list-of-tests.mk',
while the $(XFAIL_TESTS) variable is defined in 'tests/Makefile.am'.
This means that when a new xfailing test is to be added, two files
must be touched; this is suboptimal and slightly confusing.
* tests/Makefile.am (XFAIL_TESTS):
* tests/list-of-tests.mk: This file is expected to be executed
directly with make from the bootstrap script, so we can't use
Automake '##' comments after line continuations.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com
---
tests/list-of-tests.mk | 21 -
1
2012年3月21日13:13 NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com:
Here's a better question. How do you insure that your current file is
executable? Do it the same way.
Er cp $ $@ chmod +x $@ ... :]
[Relying on source-code execute bits always being correctly maintained
is one of those things that ...
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
[Relying on source-code execute bits always being correctly maintained
is one of those things that ... well... doesn't really feel very robust.
I dunno, maybe it's just me...]
Doesn't every package with a configure script rely on this? I suppose
that people
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
[Relying on source-code execute bits always being correctly maintained
is one of those things that ... well... doesn't really feel very robust.
I dunno, maybe it's just me...]
Doesn't every package with a configure
Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us writes:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
[Relying on source-code execute bits always being correctly maintained
is one of those things that ... well... doesn't really feel very robust.
I dunno, maybe it's
Hi,
I am using the GNU automake tools for the build mechanism of my project. My
project is integrated as a subsystem into a telecom platform. My subsystem
has client and management libraries and on the platform side i do some host
adaptation and i will unarchive my standalone project and compile.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
2012年3月21日13:13 NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com:
Here's a better question. How do you insure that your current file is
executable? Do it the same way.
Er cp $ $@ chmod +x $@ ... :]
[Relying on source-code execute
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 08:16:14 PM Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, NightStrike wrote:
Yes. There's an earlier email in this thread from somebody
illustrating that you don't need to morph from source to script if the
file doesn't actually get changed.
How will Microsoft
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Paul Elliott wrote:
How will Microsoft Windows File Manager and KDE's Dolphin know how to
open the proper program for the file if the file lacks a proper file
extension?
Bob
But if you don't remove the extension, and it is in the $PATH varriable, you
won't be able to get
10 matches
Mail list logo
