You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> on 2017/01/18 22:14:49 UTC

Right magic to test the crypto modules

What is the right/proper way to test the crypto modules (as they are not copied into apr/.lib during a normal build) from 'test/testall' ?

Thanks,

Dw.

Re: Right magic to test the crypto modules

Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On 19 Jan 2017, at 00:20, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> wrote:

>> What is the right/proper way to test the crypto modules (as they are not copied into apr/.lib during a normal build) from 'test/testall’ ?

> I think an LD_LIBRARY_PATH dance might be simplest? We try both the path/
> and the path/apr-#/ locations.

Aye - it seems all a bit messy - not in the least because test/* picks up the libapr-2.la in the directory above it - and that file is alread primed for the actual install —prefix - not for the so/a files then (still in) apr/.libs and (especially) apr/crypto/.libs.

So I am a bit struggling to find a simple/fast & cleanly contained tests cycles against the version ‘in-tree’.

Was hoping for a known trick/flag,

Dw

Re: Right magic to test the crypto modules

Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
I think an LD_LIBRARY_PATH dance might be simplest? We try both the path/
and the path/apr-#/ locations.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
<di...@webweaving.org> wrote:
> What is the right/proper way to test the crypto modules (as they are not copied into apr/.lib during a normal build) from 'test/testall' ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dw.

Re: Right magic to test the crypto modules

Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 19 Jan 2017, at 12:47 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> wrote:

>>> What is the right/proper way to test the crypto modules (as they are not copied into apr/.lib during a normal build) from 'test/testall' ?
>> 
>> I've always used "make test" from the root, it seems to do the right magic.
> 
> After a make install I take it ? Or not needed in your case (I seem to need that as otherwise the crypto related ones are not moved) ?

To be honest I don’t remember, it’s been a while since I did it. In theory the same mechanism is used to test dbd, etc. I would always make install to be safe.

Regards,
Graham
—

Re: Right magic to test the crypto modules

Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On 19 Jan 2017, at 11:41, Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2017, at 22:14, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> wrote:
> 
>> What is the right/proper way to test the crypto modules (as they are not copied into apr/.lib during a normal build) from 'test/testall' ?
> 
> I've always used "make test" from the root, it seems to do the right magic.

After a make install I take it ? Or not needed in your case (I seem to need that as otherwise the crypto related ones are not moved) ?

Dw.

Re: Right magic to test the crypto modules

Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 18 Jan 2017, at 22:14, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> wrote:

> What is the right/proper way to test the crypto modules (as they are not copied into apr/.lib during a normal build) from 'test/testall' ?

I've always used "make test" from the root, it seems to do the right magic.

Regards,
Graham
--