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

[Peter Rosin]

Den 2010-09-24 19:37 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> * Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:30:07AM CEST:
>> Den 2010-09-24 06:20 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
>>> 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.
>>
>> But that is not a problem with *this* patch.  That's one of those gigantic
>> tasks that Chuck mentions from time to time.
>>
>> This is not like the low max_cmd_len test.  In both cases the libtool
>> script is rigged to simulate weird conditions, but the need_lib_prefix
>> test is rigging something that never happens on platforms that never
>> create a lib prefix.  You should also not confuse this prefix with the
>> name of the .la file, the .la files are always allowed to have a lib
>> prefix, this is about the real libraries.
> 
> Ah, ok.
> 
>> We have plenty of tests that create -modules named module.la without the
>> prefix, for example dlloader-api.la.  I'm not sure what you mean by users
>> naming their modules with various suffixes, as they must be named .la?
> 
> No, they don't.  On GNU/Linux, you ought to be able to, say,
>   lt_dlopen("foo.so", ...)
> 
> if you like.  There are users of libltdl that do this.  Of course, that
> requires the users to be aware of the system-specific naming issues, but
> ideally, some way like this should work on other systems, too.

Ah, you meant the *real* module and how it is named when (ab)using it.  I
was thinking about the name when creating the module.  I don't know if we
have any tests that try to open the real module, bypassing the .la file.

>> I get the feeling that I'm saying things that you already know, so I'm
>> probably missing something.  What?
> 
> I don't think you are, apart from the above.
> 
>>> 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.
>>
>> Probably a good idea.  I'll add some words before pushing anything, but
>> I'd like this settled before doing anything further with the patch.
> 
> In light of your response, and if my response above doesn't invalidate
> your reasoning, the patch is ok with me, with that comment added.

Excellent, pushed with this comment in need_lib_prefix.at:

# Originally written to simulate a failure visible on systems
# which need a library prefix like 'lib', such as BeOS.  Currently
# the prefix is hardcoded as 'lib', so systems that require a
# different prefix skips the test.

Cheers,
Peter