Point to build requirements page when there is a dependency check failure.

Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests/port/base.py

Index: Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests/port/base.py
diff --git a/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests/port/base.py b/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests/port/base.py
index ec0853a26c1d22071f62cd8cc45b1aea60684025..e19d1e0f58cbb1f2fb765aa168ebf1b38b7fbc6c 100644
--- a/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests/port/base.py
+++ b/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/layout_tests/port/base.py
@@ -383,6 +383,10 @@ class Port(object):
             _log.error('To override, invoke with --nocheck-sys-deps')
             _log.error('')
             _log.error(output)
+            if self.host.platform.is_linux():
+                _log.error('')
+                _log.error('For complete Linux build requirements, please see:')
+                _log.error('https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LayoutTestsLinux')

[Dirk Pranke, 2014/03/20 18:17:58]

First, this is probably the wrong URL to link to; we should use
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxBuildInstructions instead, and
remove the bits about installing packages from LayoutTestsLinux altogether.

Second, I was troubled by the idea that we'd put a platform-specific check in
base.py (which we do sometimes, but I try to avoid), and also by the fact that
we're putting comments about build requirements in check_sys_deps() rather than
check_build(). If you look at win.py (for example), you'll see the same messages
in check_build() (with the Windows link, of course).

I think the right thing to do is to move this message into a
port._log_build_requirements_link() message, and refactor all of the port code
so that each port will log the right link if *either* check_sys_deps or
check_build() fails.

This shouldn't be very much work, and I think is the cleanest solution. Make
sense?

[Peter Beverloo, 2014/03/20 18:34:40]

install-build-deps.sh indeed includes all the packages listed on that page, so
the normal build instructions should be sufficient.
 
There is some precedence for this; sorry. I do agree that sharing a URL to build
instructions if either of the methods fails is a lot better. With the more
granular return messages we now have this shouldn't be hard to do, either.

             return test_run_results.SYS_DEPS_EXIT_STATUS
         return test_run_results.OK_EXIT_STATUS