On 01/05/2016 4:33 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 1/5/16 8:04 AM, Ray, Ian (GE Healthcare) wrote:
>> On 01/05/2016 03:26 AM, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
>>> On 01/05/2016 01:28 AM, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/16 5:57 PM, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
>>>>> On 01/
On 01/05/2016 03:26 AM, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> On 01/05/2016 01:28 AM, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 1/4/16 5:57 PM, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2016 11:56 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
On 1/4/16 4:26 PM, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 05:32 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 1/4/16
> I think that we should modify do_install_ptest_base to run
> do_install_ptest and install the Makefile irrespective of the presence
> of run-ptest file in ${WORKDIR}
> Something like:
> do_install_ptest_base() {
> if [ -f ${WORKDIR}/run-ptest ]; then
> install -D ${WORKDIR}/run-ptes
On 28 September 2015, Tudor Florea wrote:
> > On 28 September 2015, Ross Burton wrote:
> > > Surely if an upstream is under your control and is ptest-aware, it can
> > > also
> > > install run-ptest into the right place too?
> > The run-ptest script is currently required to be in WORKDIR.
> Actual
Hi Ross
> On 28 September 2015, Ross Burton wrote:
>> On 28 September 2015 at 15:46, Ray, Ian (GE Healthcare)
>> wrote:
>>The main benefit is for packages that are run-ptest /aware/, in which case
>> the recipe can be simplified.
> Surely if an upstream is under y
Hi Tudor
On 28 September 2015, Tudor Florea wrote:
> On 9/21/2015 10:11, Ian Ray wrote:
>> Provides a new variable, PTEST_RUN_SCRIPT_PATH, which points to a
>> directory where the run-ptest script is located. This location
>> defaults to the work directory but may be overridden within a recipe
(s
