>That's ok too. I just thought it would be good to have a target
> to build them.
Sure--I'll make that change.
Ben
pgpNCjCWhRdKi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
DejaGnu mailing list
DejaGnu@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dejagnu
Ben Elliston wrote:
We could do that. Why not just call the target `examples', though?
That's ok too. I just thought it would be good to have a target to
build them.
- rob -
___
DejaGnu mailing list
DejaGnu@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.or
> > This patch substantially flattens the tree of Makefile.am's we have.
> > All of the testsuite Makefile.ams have now been collected in the
> > top-level Makefile.am.
>
> Well, considering the lower level Makefiles don't really do much,
> this isn't much of a change anyway.
The change, as I see
Ben Elliston wrote:
This patch substantially flattens the tree of Makefile.am's we have.
All of the testsuite Makefile.ams have now been collected in the
top-level Makefile.am.
Well, considering the lower level Makefiles don't really do much,
this isn't much of a change anyway.
into the
This patch substantially flattens the tree of Makefile.am's we have.
All of the testsuite Makefile.ams have now been collected in the
top-level Makefile.am.
In addition, I changed the configury so that the examples are still
configured, but not built. All that is needed is for the user to cd
into
I've been giving some thought to this over the past week or so and
have come to the conclusion that building the DejaGnu examples seems a
bit excessive, since the most common case is a user wishing to just
install the test framework to run someone else's tests.
Compared to the time it takes to con
