From: Wanlong G. <gao...@cn...> - 2013-02-18 02:07:33
|
On 02/12/2013 08:22 PM, Jan Stancek wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: ch...@su... >> To: "Jan Stancek" <jst...@re...> >> Cc: ltp...@li... >> Sent: Monday, 11 February, 2013 4:51:11 PM >> Subject: Re: [LTP] open posix testsuite and names of testcases >> >> Hi! >>>> Just recently I've found that one of the posix tests stays >>>> running >>>> after >>>> the testsuite has exited (is reparented to init and runs happily >>>> ever >>>> after). Which is another usecase for this rename. >>>> >>>> But the original patch was rather hack (and it doesn't work for >>>> me >>>> anyway). >>>> >>>> So what about renaming the sources itself? Do we agree on this? >>> >>> I'm not against renaming sources, just thinking if there is less >>> intrusive way to achieve same result. I believe all Makefiles are >>> generated, >>> so other option that comes to mind would be to modify >>> scripts/generate-makefiles.sh. >>> Any thoughts about this approach? >> >> We can hack the script to generate Makefiles that include the dir >> name >> into the binary name which would be less intrusive but on the other >> hand >> that would break the rule that foo.c generates foo.run_test... > > Caspar, Wanlong, any preference / thoughts? I vote to changing the rule of generating the Makefiles, it's simple and the simple rule change is easy to be accepted. Agree? Thanks, Wanlong Gao > > |