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.