pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: More cleverer QA config needed? (was Re: [pcp] NSS/NSPR Testing Stat

To: Dave Brolley <brolley@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: More cleverer QA config needed? (was Re: [pcp] NSS/NSPR Testing Status)
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 03:18:31 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <350054433.36044453.1354231865714.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
----- Original Message -----
> ...
> So, approach used so far is to add the sort of tests we have now
> (PCP version based) as an initial "will this compile at all" check,
> then a subsequent "dynamic" check is done via a call into a libpcp
> routine that was added at the time of the initial feature commit.
> 
> There's pros and cons.  NSS doesn't actually have a routine like
> this and we'd have to add something.  Need to think further on the
> best option I think - maybe adding in a feature-test interface to
> libpcp (analogous to sysconf(3), but less int-based) and also a
> helper tool (something like getconf(1), for QA)?
> 
> Another option would be to use the pkg-config tool I guess.  Or we
> continue on the query-interface-per-feature path, which works too.

Attached patch is an initial pass (untested) at approach #1 for your
consideration & amusement.  I came across the existing pmconfig(1) &
made this fit into that tool, with similar APIs.

Thoughts?

cheers.

--
Nathan

Attachment: libpcp-config.patch
Description: Text Data

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>