Re: Next autoconf problem for today libdisorder
Hi Christian,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:57:12PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
>
> Well, autoconf in and by itself doesn't support testing, automake does,
> which fortunately you're also using.
>
> I've added a very trivial test from the way I understand how the program
> you're using works, and attached an updated patch to this email. (I've
> also updated the autoconf/automake prerequisites, see my last email.)
> It's actually quite trivial: write a shell script that returns
> successfully (exit code 0) or not. (You can run a C program directly if
> it does return 0 or not depending on the test results, but that doesn't
> apply to ropy directly.) My test applies ropy to the COPYING file
> containing the text of the GPL and checks if the result matches the
> expectations. Feel free to extend/change that to your liking, but as a
> basic functionality check I think that is already useful.
Great. I applied the patch in Git.
> Beware though that if "make check" fails, the package build will also
> fail by default.
Yes. That's what a test is for. :-)
> (I consider that to be a good thing, just something to
> keep in mind.) I did some test builds on amd64, i386, x32, and arm64,
> and the simple test I created succeeds on all of these platforms.
Thanks for the thorough checking!
> Well, in general I would consider pkg-config to be good thing for
> libraries, but I'm not sure here, especially if the circle of consumers
> is a very small circle and they don't appear to be using pkg-config so
> far anyway, so it's probably a waste of time here.
Good to know that you have the same feeling as I had.
> In your package, that's already the case, so you can just add the header
> to debian/control.
A, well, yes - I simply forgot this. In my initial question I assumed
something more on the Build-System would be needed.
> Another thing I noticed: your configure.ac checks for a C++
> compiler, which is unnecessary here, as this is a pure C library.
> You can simply drop the C++ checks and save computing resources.
> I've done that in the updated autoconf.patch I've attached (that
> also contains the unit test).
Cool, thanks.
> Anyway: in case you want to know more about autoconf/automake etc.
> I would really recommend <https://autotools.io/index.html> in
> addition to the official documentation of that ecosystem ([1],
> [2], [3], [4]).
I know I should know more about these tools but I need to quite rarely
and the good thing on Debian Mentors is that you (obviously) get
brilliant help if needed. While beeing really great this on the other
hand decreases the motivation to learn everything be heart. ;-)
Thanks a lot for your very verbose and helpful hints
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: