Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 01:16 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 11:21 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only part of the Xenomai user-space package not yet following
>>>>>> standard installation rules is the testsuite. It gets installed to
>>>>>> $prefix/testsuite, by default /usr/testsuite. The attached patch is an
>>>>>> approach to overcome this unusual layout.
>>>>> Ack. Implementation-wise, we have to fix the following though:
>>>>>
>>>>> xeno-load.in needs to be fixed, so that passing a single dot as argument
>>>>> correctly picks the default runinfo target in the current directory.
>>>>> This currently does not work as expected.
>>>> [obviously now fixed in svn]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The second patch works around a problem with sudo relying on the
>>>>> contents of the user's PATH variable. This won't work for people using a
>>>>> version of sudo compiled with the secure path option by their favourite
>>>>> distro. In that case, /usr/xenomai/bin (or whatever the user picked to
>>>>> install xenomai) won't appear in that secure path, so the binary program
>>>>> given in the runinfo file won't be found. A possible option is to
>>>>> provide a relative path to locate the binary program,
>>>>> e.g. ../../../../bin/latency for the latency test, as the example patch
>>>>> shows. Not pretty, but the other way would need to autoconfiscate the
>>>>> runinfo files, or at least run them through sed before installing, so
>>>>> that we could substitute some placeholder with $exec_prefix.
>>>> Relative paths are not fully safe, 
>>> Why, provided the sudo sub-shell in xeno-load changes dir to the
>>> target_dir variable contents?
>>>
>>
>> Because exec_prefix (=>bindir) may be different from prefix
>> (=>pkgdatadir), thus there is no fixed relation between the .runinfo
>> location and the binaries until after the installation.
> 
> Since the testsuite scripts are supposed to be run on the target, I
> think they should be installed under exec_prefix.
> 

I didn't come across some scenario yet where I had to split exec_prefix
from prefix. So I followed this definition:

"Generally, $(exec_prefix) is used for directories that contain
machine-specific files (such as executables and subroutine libraries),
while $(prefix) is used directly for other directories."

As the scripts just like the .runinfos are certainly
machine-independent, my feeling is that prefix is the right thing.

Jan


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to