On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 21:43 -0500, Dean Glazeski wrote: > Duane Ellis wrote: > > Dean Glazeski wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > > > Can anyone give me insight on these files: > > > > > > openocd.x86_64: E: > > > statically-linked-binary /usr/lib64/openocd/ecos/at91eb40a.elf > > > /usr/lib64/openocd/ecos/at91eb40a.elf > > > > > These are *TARGET* files, the "package tool" you have is > > *WRONG*HEADED*, or mis-informed - it sees the file as an ELF, then > > wrong assumes it is an *ELF* target for the intended HOST. You might > > want to ask the packaging people how to identify such files My hunch > > is, they have *NEVER* thought about this situation! > The interesting thing about this is that Fedora is sort of hard set on > following a filesystem hierarchy standard. What this basically means > is that architecture specific files go into lib while architecture > independent files belong in share. This means that all of the target > scripts and this elf file should probably be installed > into /usr/share/. I can use patches to fix this for the Fedora RPM if > you can tell me how to tweak the build so that the files go > elsewhere :). It might be good to consider fixing this to follow the > FHS in the current head.
If you provide a list of difference between the actual/expected install paths for the files in question, I can take a look at the changes required for the autotools scripts. This should be easy to fix, and I am not opposed to doing it. Can such changes negatively affect others? Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
