From: James T. <tak...@us...> - 2011-09-09 18:03:31
|
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:31, Cyril Hrubis <ch...@su...> wrote: > > I would still rather see this as dirs, but if the change is more than > just untar them and change one script, I could live with the tarballs > for now. Cool. Thanks for your flexibility. > > I just perused this issue more closely, and realize that the diff is > > already doing what you want. The existing script patches the setregid02 > > subtest, but Lucy's patch comments out those lines. > > > Well there are two patches, one that is used to add some include lines > in case of debian distro and actually that one is still in place and > even may be correct. Could you check if this one is correct, int this > case we would just apply it to LTP and drop it from pounder entirely. It took me quite awhile to find this second patch you mention. I thought you were talking about something in Lucy's patch set, but I finally figured out that it's a separate pounder issue that you feel her patch set should address right now. The main mission of Lucy's patch set is to enable pounder usage for the world. Being able to run LTP side by side with your own in-house tests and applications is a handy framework, and I'm hoping that Lucy's patch set will help to grow a community of happy pounder users. If you could defer this issue for now, it might enable others to contribute towards fixing this problem (and perhaps the tarball issue as well). That was our hope, anyhow, when we sponsored Lucy's internship. In addition, there's a sort of silver lining to keeping this patch around. It shows us how to apply temporary workarounds to LTP while we're eagerly awaiting the next monthly release :-) Seriously, though, if it falls onto my shoulders to fix it right now, it's going to take awhile for me to figure out what Debian release necessitated ltp-debian-build.patch. The bottom line is that I agree with you that ltp-debian-build.patch should go away (or move into test_1_to_1_connect.c if it's actually necesary). But I'd like to defer that as a TODO list item for now. > PS: the second patch for setregid is not likely to apply now as there > were some changes in the source code. Understood. I wanted to keep the comment around nevertheless as a reminder that we used to do something special here if I hit any related problems. |