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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
