On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:02:19PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 12:00 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Running "make distcheck" ensures that we have CLEANFILES and uninstall
> rules setup correctly, as well as validating VPATH builds succeeed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com>
> ---
> .travis.yml | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml
> index 3f26a1eeee..4bdf034829 100644
> --- a/.travis.yml
> +++ b/.travis.yml
> @@ -6,8 +6,13 @@ matrix:
> include:
> - compiler: gcc
> dist: precise
> + # Special scenario to run distcheck, so we don't waste time duplicating
> + # work in all the other scenarios. Doesn't work on precise due to the
> + # CVE-2012-3386 flaw being present on that Ubuntu version
> - compiler: gcc
> dist: trusty
> + script:
> + - make -j3 distcheck
> - compiler: clang
> dist: precise
> - compiler: clang
This will override the default script, and make it so the
precise/gcc build only runs distcheck rather than the usual all,
check, syntax-check. So we need something else.
Yes, that's intentional and not a problem IMHO.
'check' is run as part of 'distcheck' so that's a non-issue.
Running syntax-check in all 5 scenarios isn't buying us anything,
as the syntax-check rules don't depend on what is installed in the
host. IOW, running syntax-check in 1 scenario is sufficient to get
us the coverage we need.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|