OK, so a new configure option which sets a certain make variable which then enables that parts of gmakefile.test, right?
Something like —-with-add-macos-firewall-rules? So it would be still be possible to pass that variable to make without reconfigure. I guess that's fine, I even take it as an advantage, but probably doesn't need to be documented. Only the configure option should be properly explained in —-help output. Do you agree? Vaclav > On 31 Aug 2020, at 19:46, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would make your fix a configure option that is off by default. It is silly > that Apple makes you use sudo to tell it that a compiled code SHOULD NOT > accept outside connections but they have it all bundled together without > enough thought for developers. > > Barry > > >> On Aug 31, 2020, at 4:14 AM, Hapla Vaclav <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On 29 Aug 2020, at 02:03, Hapla Vaclav <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 28 Aug 2020, at 22:47, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Hapla Vaclav" <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> On MacOS, maybe you also have lots of firewall popups >>>>> appearing/disappearing when running tests like >>>>> Do you want the application "ex29" to accept incoming network connections? >>>> >>>> Is there a way to express that the application does not need (should not >>>> accept) incoming connections? >>> >>> Oh yes, hadn't thought about before, but it's surely better to _block_ the >>> incoming connections - feels safer for a user at least. >>> >>> But the way is the same, requiring sudo: >>> >>> sudo /usr/libexec/ApplicationFirewall/socketfilterfw --add >>> $PETSC_DIR/$PETSC_ARCH/tests/dm/impls/plex/tests/ex9 >>> sudo /usr/libexec/ApplicationFirewall/socketfilterfw --block >>> $PETSC_DIR/$PETSC_ARCH/tests/dm/impls/plex/tests/ex9 >>> >>> Funny enough, these commands don't fail without sudo but they have no >>> effect. >>> >>>> >>>> Normalizing sudo during build/testing seems really bad. >>> >>> I agree. It shouldn't be a normal part of the makefile. That's why I have >>> been hesitant to create a MR. I think we could >>> 1. just add an FAQ entry - but the patch can become out-of-date pretty >>> quickly, and instructions without a patch are gonna be tedious >>> 2. activate this part conditionally, requiring a user's action such as >>> passing a very special variable to makefile >>> 3. put it into a separate makefile and add a commented out include into >>> gmakefile.test, so that the user has to explicitly uncomment the inclusion >>> - or something like that >>> 4. something else? >> >> Jed, Barry, thoughts here? >> >> Thanks, >> Vaclav >> >>> >>> Vaclav >> >
