OpenModelica users wanting to have rpms?

[Christoph Höger]

Hi,

thanks for your reply.

> On the other hand, CMake would probably be less than helpful for the SML 
> parts, which comprise a significant portion of the codebase as far as I can 
> see, you'd have to work with add_custom_command which isn't that wonderful. 
> (For common languages like C/C++ and a few others, CMake does a lot of stuff 
> for you, but less common ones aren't really supported and you end up having 
> to write CMake commands equivalent to makefile rules.)
> 
> So each tool has its advantages and drawbacks.

Signed. Of course CMake was an alternative but since I already had
Makfiles as a base to start from...
Maybe I'll test out CMake too.

> Normally testsuites can use the just-built compiler directly from the source 
> tree. Look at existing projects and how they handle this. As you're using 
> autotools, I guess GCC would be a good place to look.

Ah, yeah. Thanks for the hint.

> Sure, I don't see why not. You just need to be careful when building (you 
> need to build the object files to different places so they don't conflict).

That's one nice feature of automake. In fact the old buildsystem used
suffix rules (*.p.o *.g.o) to build different object files. Automake
handles this automagically.

> Hmmm, that's a bit at the limit, 3 letters are a bit short for a unique 
> name. :-( But there's no librml.so in Fedora yet as far as repoquery tells 
> me, so at least there's no current conflict. Let's see what others think.

> If that's the upstream project name (used in things like tarballs), it's 
> fine. (But is the MixedCase really necessary? :-( Usually things like 
> tarball and package names are all lowercase, but sometimes MixedCase is used 
> by upstream and the Fedora packages usually match that. Probably something 
> to discuss with upstream.)

I convinced upstream that a new name like rml-mm (for "rml with
metamodelica support" would be a good thing, so both problems will
probably be solved soon.

> > The package builds a compiler driver, essentially a shell script, by
> > copying some configuration variables into a shell template (mainly how
> > to invoke cc). Would this be fine as a /usr/bin script?
> 
> Yes, but beware of multilib conflicts: if that script is in the same package 
> as some libraries, that package will end up multilibbed due to the libraries 
> and if the script is not identical for 32-bit and 64-bit, there will be a 
> conflict between the 2 multilibbed packages. (Splitting out the libraries 
> into a -libs package is a way to work around that.)

Since the compiler seems to run without the libs two (sub-)packages
might indeed be a good idea.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100128/d00d862f/attachment.bin