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