Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> Actually this seems more appropriately run from a checked-out >> gnulib directory, e.g., as part of a "make check" rule. > > I would much prefer if the gnulib/Makefile "check" rule be reserved > to platform independent checks on the gnulib code. Tests of some programs > belong in the test module of that program, IMO, so that > - the test is also performed when we test a gnulib testdir on various > platforms, > - gnulib/Makefile doesn't become a random collection of things, like > the "system.h" a few years ago.
... >> $u --name=z <(printf 'if(p)z(p);') > /dev/null >> test $$($u --name=z <(printf 'if(p)z(p);if(p)z(p);')|wc -l) = 2 > > This is not too hard to put into the common shape of gnulib tests: Scripts like useless-if-before-free and vc-list-files are in a different class than the rest of gnulib, since they're expected to run only via rules like "make distcheck" and "make syntax-check" and we have always said that those rules are expected to work only in very restricted (i.e. modern) environments, and with the latest tools. Tests are necessary, but I don't want to be bothered about test failures on involving environments where the scripts would never be used otherwise. So, the obvious solution is to write a regular, gnulib-style test that gets distributed and run by everyone, but that is skipped unless there are modern enough versions of bash, perl, etc. I'll do that, though not today ;-)
