On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:59:25 -0500 Derek Foreman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2018-03-19 11:20 AM, Eric Engestrom wrote: > > On Monday, 2018-03-19 16:10:57 +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 19 March 2018 at 16:08, Eric Engestrom <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> On Monday, 2018-03-19 15:13:14 +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > >>>> +if ! test -f "$LIB"; then > >>>> + echo "Test binary \"$LIB\" does not exist" > >>>> + exit 99 > >>>> +fi > >>>> + > >>>> +if ! test -n "$NM"; then > >>>> + echo "nm environment variable not set" > >>>> + exit 99 > >>> > >>> 99? Were you looking for the "skip this test" 77? > >> > >> I did mean 99 'some kind of inexplicable internal error happened' > >> rather than 77 skip, but I have no strong opinion on it and am happy > >> to change to whatever is suggested. > > > > I guess "don't have the tools to test this, skipping" would be fine, but > > I'm not really involved in the wayland project so my opinion isn't the > > one that matters the most :P > > Additional review is valuable, thanks. :) > > > "I have no strong feelings one way or the other" > > In the absence of strong feelings, I've pushed this as-is. > > Along with the recent version of the "pass nm path to check script" patch. Hi, I think 99 is the right one to use. It's an ABI breakage check, we definitely don't want that to be optional. Thanks, pq
pgp_f9PCVw92g.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
