From: Scott Prive <Scott.Prive@st...> - 2002-06-11 19:52:24
Given a choice, I would prefer a compiled rpm because the platform I =
test against does not (by design) include a compiler.
That said, it's not a big deal for me to build this and scp my own =
From: Ihno Krumreich [mailto:ihno@...]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 7:24 AM
To: Paul Larson
Cc: ak@...; ltp-list@...
Subject: Re: [LTP] ltp enhancements
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 09:09:50AM -0500, Paul Larson wrote:
> So what would be the big benefit of this over autoconf? Can't
> autoconf/automake do all of that (except binary rpm of course)?
The benefit of an rpm (with or without sources) is that it fits into
the generall building process of a Linux distro. Every Linux vendor
who supports more than one architekture has an automated process
to build the "ready to install"-rpms from one source for each
The testing people in turn can use these rpms to automate
the test (installl the rpm, run the test and evaluate the results).
So the benefit is, that the testsuite would become a tool
for the testing (at least for 390).
/ __/____/ / Caldera (Deutschland) GmbH
/ /_/ __ / /__ Naegelsbachstr. 49c, 91052 Erlangen
/_____//_/ /____/ http://www.caldera.de
=3D=3D=3D=3D /_____/ =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dipl. Inform. Ihno =
Krumreich, email: ihno@...
Caldera Open Linux Tel: ++49 9131 71923-27, fax: ++49 9131 =
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
Ltp-list mailing list
Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.