On Monday 18 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 09:36:42PM CEST: > > On Sunday 17 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > > am_test_name is better, but doesn't explain either why it would be > > > needed in the first place. > > > > > Second patch of: > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2011-02/msg00044.html> > > And possible similar patches in the future. > > That explains why, from within the testsuite, you'd like to be able to > override it for some tests. It doesn't explain why an override from the > user calling 'make check' should be possible. (IOW, I understand the > "this would be convenient" aspect, but it seems it should be possible to > construct the testsuite in a way to still not allow user overrides.) > Honestly, I'd not worry about this ATM (but I share your concerns about the lack of namespace cleanliness). Presently, a determined user can anyway wreak havoc by exporting variables such as 'required', 'MISSING' and 'parallel_tests' (and there are even more in the master branch: 'original_AUTOMAKE', 'am__using_gmake', 'instspc_action'). A first step would IMHO be making these variables at least namespace-safe. Should I write a patch?
Regards, Stefano
