Re: Can I force 'make install' to depend on 'make test'?

[Guido Draheim]

install-data-local : check

That's the answer. In reality I have a last line in the configure.ac
that says "echo '#' make && make check && make install" - it does
remind a casual install-from-source guy to do a "make check" before
going to "make install". 't works pretty well, since many do a simple
mousing copy-n-paste of that line in the terminal. It makes that
`make check` also optional, possibly reducing time for your own
development cycles with the same source tree (but perhaps you current
`make check` is quick enough to be run always). Instead I have a
rpm spec along that uses `make check` always - the rpm build is also
a great way to check that off-develdir builds will succeed as well.

have fun, guido

Dr. David Kirkby schrieb:
> Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>
> > Though I really don't think it's a good idea, have you tried just adding
> > install : check to your Makefile.am?
>
>
> No, I had not, I might try that - but see below.
>
>
> > Anyways, the reason I don't think it's a good idea is that it will break
> > cross-compiling, as your test programs will probably not run on the build
> > host in that case..
>
>
> Can you suggest a better way? I'm open to suggestions, as I'm not convinced my 
> current method is optimal at all. I had not even considered cross-compilation 
> issues.
>
> In fact, I would *much appreciate* any suggestions for a better method(s). I'm sure what I am trying to do is not the best way, but don't know of a better one. 
>
> Basically I will have several source (.c) files that will create 10 platform 
> dependant binary files (executables). All except one of these 10 binary files 
> are designed to quickly produce bitmaps of simple shapes. (i.e. a circle inside 
> a rectangle, a rectangle insider a circle ...)
>
> Next I want to check the 9 binaries are indeed producing the correct bitmaps, 
> so I check the md5 checksum of the bitmaps produced by the 9 binaries. So a 
> test is basically like this (must simplified)
>
> create_bitmap_for_rect_in_rect foo.bmp
> MD5SUM=`md5 foo.bmp`
> if [ $MD5SUM != bdfb21053d9af7302bb587b1b89c113a ] ; then
>   exit 1
> else
>   exit 0
> fi
>
> If the md5 checksum of the bitmaps agree with what I expect, I can assume the 9 
> binaries are functioning properly.
>
> After creating the bitmaps with these 9 executables, another program (the 10th binary, called 'atlc') will run a long cpu intensive numerical simulation based on the contents of each bitmap. The output of 'atlc' consists of 6 further bitamps and a text file. 
>
> I was expecting for the output from 10th binary (atlc) to be useful it two ways.
>
> 1) I can check the checkum of the output files, confirming atlc works okay.
> 2) I can install some of the files produced by atlc, for the purpose of examples. 
>
> Hence my dilemma. It seems sensible to me that 'make install' requires that 'make check' has already been run, but I'm open to suggestions of how to be structure this. 
>
> Should the tests just create files, check their checksum, then remove the files? Or is it better to leave the files around, so they can be installed as examples? Since I want to install these as examples and generating them is time consuming, it seems sensible to do it only once. 
>
> Any help appreciated.