Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592579 --- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-24 04:10:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > The two *.byte files frama-c.byte and frama-c-gui.byte) don't work when > generated using the *current* process. Stripping them won't make them *better* > :-). If they can be fixed without much trouble, great, but otherwise, I don't > think we should package non-working files, and we should package the files for > the architectures where the OCaml compiler can produce machine code. Most > people won't notice the omission of the .byte files, since x86s are the most > common architectures. There's a rule in the OCaml packaging guidelines that we should package the best possible binaries only -- ie. native, if the platform supports native compilation. (And for a very long time, OCaml on Fedora's supported architectures has always had native compilation). (In reply to comment #9) > I did a make clean on the why compile from source and now jessie seems to work. > Now the real issue is that jessie really comes from why not from frama c. > That being said, I begin to suspect that for proper operation the two need to > be installed at the same time, and I suspect that they will need to be in the > same package. Generally, each source tarball should go in a separate SRPM. There is a packaging guideline rule for this too IIRC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review