OpenModelica users wanting to have rpms?

[Christoph Höger]

Hi,

if you are an OpenModelica user, you might know that we do not have any
rpms available for fedora.
This might be due to the buildsystem.

I have started converting MetaModelica to autootols to boot-bootstrap
the omc build process.

See github.com/choeger/MetaModelica-autotools

Building the rml compiler and the related libraries was easy, but now I
could need some help and advice on how to build the testcases.
In the original buildsystem from
https://openmodelica.ida.liu.se/svn/MetaModelica there are some examples
with own makefiles, but those refer to the buildsystem itself. 
I am not sure how to handle this with automake (obviously it would
require to build the compiler before the tests).
So currently I am wondering if the examples should have a build system
that requires the compiler to be installed, any thoughts?

On the other hand, there are some "style" questions, I'd like to be
answered:

This package builds three slightly different libraries in three differen
flavors: called (librml_plain|librml_mask|librml_diff)(_g|_p|).so
Those flavors only differ by the CFLAGS set upon compilation (_p means
-p, _g -g).
Upstream told me, they require them all, but would this be acceptable?

Is the name rml ok for a library in /usr/lib or shall I
use /usr/lib/rml/ by default? (Same for headers)

What with the name? Is MetaModelica even a good name, if the main binary
is rmlc?

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?

Feel free to demand any changes, I will discuss this with upstream.

regards

Christoph
-------------- 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/20100126/5e019bc9/attachment.bin