From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m2NKZM9s005004 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:35:22 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 0935C6D9888 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id TDZ0wFD6BUbkXLmW for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <47E6BDC3.7030107@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:29:55 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsqa: call _notrun in common.dump if dump utils not found References: <47E5CFBA.7060405@sandeen.net> <20080323054136.GA7529@puku.stupidest.org> In-Reply-To: <20080323054136.GA7529@puku.stupidest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Chris Wedgwood Cc: xfs-oss Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:34:18PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> it may not always be obvious to outsiders that xfsdump is packaged >> separately from xfsprogs... is it worth checking for the binaries >> rather than spewing verbose failures if it's not installed? > > I really think xfsdump & fsr should be moved to xfsprogs. > wouldn't bother me... tests should probably require the executable either way :) -Eric