[Bug 1477363] Review Request: ocaml-cmdliner - Declarative definition of command line interfaces for OCaml

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477363



--- Comment #9 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> ---
> The final link doesn't include -g so that's one problem:

I've fixed this by passing -lflag -g to ocamlbuild, which does add -g to the
link step (though as far as I can see, this shouldn't be necessary...), e.g.
according to the build log:

ocamlfind ocamlopt -a -g -package bytes src/cmdliner_suggest.cmx
src/cmdliner_trie.cmx src/cmdliner_base.cmx src/cmdliner_manpage.cmx
src/cmdliner_info.cmx src/cmdliner_docgen.cmx src/cmdliner_msg.cmx
src/cmdliner_cline.cmx src/cmdliner_term.cmx src/cmdliner_arg.cmx
src/cmdliner.cmx -o src/cmdliner.cmxa

However... this still did not solve the problem. But then I, on a weird hunch,
removed the "chmod -x" line from the install step and, magically, debuginfo was
found... So I've made the chmod more granular to only set -x on the files RPM
was actually complaining about and now everything seems to work!

> As long as MIT is compatible with the license, then that's fine.

Uh, my bad. :) For some reason I thought ISC == MIT (and indeed, they are very
similar) but looking at our guidelines the "ISC" tag should be used here. So
I'll just use License: ISC instead.

Here's the new version:

Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-cmdliner.spec
SRPM URL:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-cmdliner-1.0.2-3.fc26.src.rpm

- Fix debuginfo generation by not blindly chmod -x all the files.
- Pass -g to the link step of ocamlbuild as well as the compilation step.
- Use ocaml_natdynlink macro to determine when to compile the *.cmxs files.
- Modify the makefile to use install -p instead of just install.
- Switch License tag to the more correct ISC license.
- Added parallel build macro to make invocation.
- Made libname macro a global rather than a define.

Should the natdylink library be in the -devel package instead of the main
package? Currently it gets included in the main package.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux