Enrico Tassi writes ("Re: detecting autopkgtest"):
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:08:12PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > There's a hidden assumption here that adt is the only thing that
> > will ever run the tests.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but giv
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:08:12PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >But maybe a more polite way would be to ask something like `adt
> >--is-running` and let adt implement it as it likes.
>
> There's a hidden assumption here that adt is the only thing that
> will ever run the tests.
Correct me if I'm w
* Enrico Tassi , 2013-09-16, 11:20:
Looking at the doc of adt-run, the only observable difference seems to be the
presence of ADTTMP.
Indeed.
But maybe a more polite way would be to ask something like `adt --is-running`
and let adt implement it as it likes.
There's a hidden assumption here
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:00:01AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > I've many packages with a decent "test" target already, run at build
> > time. In case this target is run by adt-run I want it to behave in
> > a slightly different way. For exmample I don't want to set env
> > variables so that n
On 2013-09-16 10:38, Enrico Tassi wrote:
> Hello, is checking for the environment variable ADTTMP the recommended
> way to test if a test is being run by adt-run? It seems to work, but
> I'd like to know if there is a better way or not.
>
> I've many packages with a decent "test" target already,
Hello, is checking for the environment variable ADTTMP the recommended
way to test if a test is being run by adt-run? It seems to work, but
I'd like to know if there is a better way or not.
I've many packages with a decent "test" target already, run at build
time. In case this target is run by a
6 matches
Mail list logo
