https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884
--- Comment #37 from Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> ---
(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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
