Re: [PATCH] Define secure_getenv (v2)

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos_odonell at mentor dot com>]

On 7/27/2012 8:41 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:45:40 -0400, Carlos wrote:
>> On 7/19/2012 11:31 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I think I've incorporated the feedback so far.  Static linking
>>> indeed helps to run the test case.  Not sure if I should make it an
>>> xtest, but supplementary groups are very common.
>>
>> No, leave it in the normal set of tests for now.
>>
>> We'll get feedback soon enough from developers if they have problems
>> running the test.
>>
>> Based on the feedback we'll decide if it should go into xtest.
> 
> Sorry, jumping in a little late on this, but the test is breaking for
> me since I don't have a supplementary group for the user I use for my
> development. Maybe instead of making it an xtest, you could simply spew
> this out as a warning and mention that the test is skipped instead of
> reporting a failure. In future we might want to put in place a way to
> see all the tests that are skipped.
> 
> Also another note on the test case: all of the failure notes are
> written to stderr, which is not correct. The test outputs are written
> to stdout so that they're redirected into the tst-test-case.out file.
> This is useful when one runs 'make -k check' and then tries to figure
> out the reason for failure of each test.

Florian,

Please tweak the test not to fail and issue a warning when the supplementary
group is missing.

We need to document somewhere what one needs to do to run all of the tests.

I'd be happy if we had a shell script hat did all the test setup for you on
the test machine for various distros (including fixing things that the xcheck
test need).

Cheers,
Carlos.
-- 
Carlos O'Donell
Mentor Graphics / CodeSourcery
carlos_odonell@mentor.com
carlos@codesourcery.com
+1 (613) 963 1026