Re: [PATCH] Skip need_lib_prefix.at on systems without lib prefix on libraries.

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello Peter,

* Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 08:44:43AM CEST:
> need_lib_prefix.at currently fails with MSVC. I think the test
> is there to ensure that "weird" systems continue to work even
> if the testsuite is running on a "normal" system. "weird" in
> this case are systems with need_lib_prefix set to "unknown" and
> "normal" are those with it set to "no". However, there are
> even weirder systems where need_lib_prefix should perhaps be
> set to "never" (i.e. MSVC) but that currently simply sets it
> to "no". "never" would perhaps be more appropriate since preopen
> doesn't work right if libs have a lib prefix. I think OS/2 is
> affected in the same way as MSVC, but I have no means to test
> that.
> 
> The below patch makes the need_lib_prefix.at test skip for the
> even weirder systems, i.e. those where libname_spec does not
> prefix library names with lib.
> 
> Ok to push?
> 
> 
> You may want to compare this patch with thread
> 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-01/msg00174.html
> 
> which instead makes the test pass for the even weirder systems,
> but I don't think that is really desired. Why should the code be
> changed to accommodate a contrived test case? Because this would
> never happen in the wild, right?

The part about this patch which I'm unsure about is this:

Does the testsuite otherwise cover well enough the fact that users may
name their modules with or without leading 'lib' prefix (and with .la or
.dll or .so suffix or so)?

IOW, I'd like to be sure we're not hiding anything here.

And yes, I think (part of) the log entry from the initial test addition
probably deserves to be a comment in the test, so we don't have to look
it up again.

> Subject: [PATCH] Skip need_lib_prefix.at on systems without lib prefix on 
> libraries.
> 
> * tests/need_lib_prefix.at [MSVC, OS/2]: Skip this test on
> systems that do not have libraries prefixed with lib.

Thanks,
Ralf