[Fedora-packaging] Introducing a directory for installed test programs

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 02/07/2012 10:36 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 05:30 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
>> On 02/06/2012 03:58 PM, Julio Merino wrote:
>>> What do you mean by "multi-lib heartburn in RPM"? (Sorry, not familiar
>>> from the term and a couple of Google searches did't provide much
>>> insight.) FWIW, I have a preliminary atf.spec file here that provides
>>> subpackages for libraries, tests and binaries and things seem to be fine
>>> to my untrained eye. I can share this file if it helps at all.
>>
>> No, what I meant here is that RPM, when dealing with multi-arch support
>> (essentially the ability to simultaneously foo.i686.rpm and
>> foo.x86_64.rpm containing the same set of files, just built for the
>> different architecture targets), won't understand /usr/tests (or
>> /usr/libexec/tests for that matter).
>>
>> However, if you want to be able to support this use-case, you'll need to
>> do something here to enable it, such as requiring that architecture be
>> embedded in the naming scheme, e.g. /usr/tests/xpdf-x86_64/
>
> Um, rpm doesn't do multilib conflict resolution based on specific
> directories but file type, essentially 32bit vs 64bit ELF. So if
> foo-test.i686 and too-test.x86_64 both place an ELF binary into eg
> /usr/libexec/tests/foo, the file from the preferred arch (normally the
> 64bit one) will "win", the other file is not installed at all and no
> conflict is raised.
>
> Whether you actually *want* that behavior is another question: tests and
> their associated data can just as well be arch-specific or
> arch-independent. The only safe assumption is to assume arch-specific
> and put all test executables and associated data into arch-specific
> paths (whether some variant of lib vs lib64 style differentation or by
> actually embedding the arch string).

%{_libdir}/<package>/<somewhere> avoids all these issues.

Ralf