With a non-recursive, top level Makefile. Quick example:
So, replace a nicely separated source setup with munging together the
information about everything in one place? Thanks for the suggestion,
but that seems like a major step backwards in maintainability to me, so
I'll decline. Life goe
On 01/22/2013 12:09 AM, Karl Berry wrote:
> This would require to change the 'check-recursive' targets not to
> share the same code with the other '*-recursive' targets. I really
> don't want to go there.
>
> Totally reasonable :).
>
> The best solution is on the user-side IMHO:
Stefano Lattarini writes:
> The best solution is on the user-side IMHO: fix the build system to
> use less (ideally none) make recursion. Both the parallel and serial
> testsuite harness should support that setup OOTB.
It would be nice if automake had some more features for that...
E.g., if I h
This would require to change the 'check-recursive' targets not to
share the same code with the other '*-recursive' targets. I really
don't want to go there.
Totally reasonable :).
The best solution is on the user-side IMHO: fix the build system to
use less (ideally none) make
Hi Karl.
On 01/20/2013 11:20 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
> Especially for packages which run make check in several subdirectories
> (e.g., texinfo), Nelson Beebe made the suggestion that it would be
> helpful if there was an "overall" textual report of success or failure,
> and not just the exit status.
Especially for packages which run make check in several subdirectories
(e.g., texinfo), Nelson Beebe made the suggestion that it would be
helpful if there was an "overall" textual report of success or failure,
and not just the exit status. Something like "ALL TESTS PASSED"
vs. "FAILED TESTS". Lea
