https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #37 from Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Brandon Nielsen from comment #36) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > > > > > > > C/C++: > > > > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > > > > [?]: Package contains no static executables. > > > > [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > > > > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > > > > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. > > > > > > I agree this is gross, but it's not in "regular" gcc's ld path, so I think > > > it's okay? > > > > Yes, I think these are OK where they are: > > > > msp430-elf-gcc: > > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/gcc/msp430-elf/9.2.0/plugin/libcc1plugin.so > > msp430-elf-gcc: > > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/gcc/msp430-elf/9.2.0/plugin/libcp1plugin.so > > msp430-elf-gcc: /usr/msp430-elf/libexec/gcc/msp430-elf/9.2.0/liblto_plugin.so > > > > They're specific to this build of GCC, and won't be used by anything else. > > > > I will remove them. What I meant is that they're fine to keep. If you remove them you won't be able to use GDB's on-demand compilation feature, or LTO. > > I agree that you don't want the subpackages to require the main one, but > > that's because the main one doesn't actually exist ... no > > msp430-elf-toolchain package actually gets created. > > > > Shouldn't that main package be an umbrella package that installs the others, > > i.e. the main package should have: > > > > Requires: %{name}-binutils%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > > Requires: %{name}-gcc%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > > Requires: %{name}-gcc-c++%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > > Requires: %{name}-gdb%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > > > > That would allow you to say 'dnf install msp430-elf-toolchain' and get all > > of the subpackages at once. > > That's a good idea! My only thought is I don't actually know many developers > doing C++ on embedded, If they don't want the whole thing they only need to install msp430-elf-gcc (which also installs msp430-elf-binutils). If they want a debugger too they can install msp430-elf-gdb. Nobody *has* to use the -toolchain package to get everything :-) > but I like the idea of being able to get the complete > toolchain. > > An additional question, since I've moved to setting the > '--prefix=%{_prefix}/%{target}' on configure, I've needed to add a matching > '-B/usr/bin/msp430-elf-' to any Makefile using the resulting compiler. Would > setting the program prefix, instead of adding the prefix with my symlinks, > fix this? > > One final question, do I need to run add a check step? They used to not > work, but I think they do now. I'm not sure what you're referring to, %check steps have always worked as far as I know. It's probably a good idea to add one. Maybe just compile and link a "hello, world" program as a sanity check. You won't be able to run it of course. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
