[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: misc/45038: lack of tests options
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:01:12PM +0100, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> On 6/16/11 3:52 PM, Nicolas Joly wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:44:21PM +0100, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> >> Also document the unprivileged_user option. It's used explicitly by
> >> some tests. (It defaults to _atf.)
> > I don't find it anywhere. Is it "require.user" = "unprivileged" ?
> Ah sorry, it's unprivileged-user.
> > IMHO, we should only document in tests(7) the configuration variables
> > which are not part of ATF.
> Well, I guess this one is a bit of a compromise. unprivileged-user
> was _not_ an atf-specific variable; it used to be defined by NetBSD
> only. These days, it has a special meaning in atf itself, but some
> NetBSD tests query it directly to do their own stuff. In other
> words, it is not only used by require.user=unprivileged, but also to
> perform some specific actions in the tmpfs tests.
I'll have a look, and add it.
Projects and Developments in Bioinformatics
Institut Pasteur, Paris.
Main Index |
Thread Index |