* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 02:14:26AM CET: > On Monday 10 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > The longer the names, and the more the tests, the earlier we will exceed > > the command line length limit in our 'check' rules (important to fix on > > all systems it happens) and our 'distdir' rule (important at least for > > the maintainer's machine). > > > Ouch, I never tought about these issues :-( > > > So, support for more than one parallel-tests testsuite per Makefile.am > > is needed soonish. > > > Or better (if possible) finding out a way to transparently avoid > commandline-lenght issues when calling $(MAKE) recursively. There > was a previous attempt of yours at this IIRC, but it didn't work > out. Maybe it's time to give it a second shot?
I don't think there is any way to avoid the limit with portable make alone. When gnu-make infrastructure is in place, we can think about a replacement rule for that, but we should provide multiple test suites anyway, that's also nice for subsetting in general. > > Besides, while I agree > > that the 8+3 names are often lacking descriptiveness, I also don't like > > typing too much. > > > But how often do you type the name of the testcases after all? (I mean, > without the help of tab completion of course ;-). Oh, this is obviously not a big deal, but I actually try NetBSD csh sometimes which doesn't seem to provide it; this is mostly to ensure that the $SHELL setting from the environment doesn't leak into our code. > > For example, I'm not sure why we named the 'posixsubst*.test' files > > that way; there is little specifically posixy about these substitution > > rules. > > > Well, they are the only POSIX-mandated textual substitutions for make > macros, so I thought the test names were appropriated -- or am I missing > something? What's wrong with s/^posix// though? Lots of other things are Posix-mandated too, but we don't make a big deal out of that either? Cheers, Ralf
