Faidon, On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:10:32PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > Kilian Krause wrote: > >>In the case that it is, how would you feel about making the sample > >>build/run conditional on the presence of libpt in the build system? > > > >Well, it was very much needed as a precaution in the past - especially on > >the non-trivial architectures. Doing a conditional test without enforcing > >it > >to FTBFS the package would just reintroduce that harm with a very low bar > >to > >jump over. If you think it is seriously needed we should add the > >DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS switch and conditionalize it in there - or plain not run > >it at all. > I wasn't specific enough about the conditional: > What I meant was, skipping the tests altogether if > /usr/lib/libpt.so.1.10.1 is found. > > That way, it'll do the runtime test on clean chroots but skip it in > development environments, which is much better than having a > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. > > Any objections to that?
the check should verify neither libpt.so nor libpt.so.$(SOVER) are available. If you can then verify that this does no longer cause a misleading false positive (with the check failing before) then should be able to safely commit. -- Best regards, Kilian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
