https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627
--- Comment #9 from Andy Mender <[email protected]> --- > In this way won't I need to copy the needed file from the specified prefix to > placed like %{_bindir} in the %install section for it to reside in correct > path? If the files to be installed has been listed explicitly in the %files section, how would this option "invade" other normal GCC packages? Honestly, I'm a little torn regarding this. I'm reviewing another package, a GCC version for a non-standard target: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 (relevant section of the Packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Cross_Compiling_Toolchains#Cross-compiling_GCC_tool-chains) In that case it seems like all of the extra trickery is needed. However, for instance avr-gdb, a package extremely similar to yours, doesn't do any of that (a snippet from its SPEC file): %prep %setup -q -c cp %{SOURCE1} . %build mkdir -p build pushd build CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -D_GNU_SOURCE" \ ../gdb-%{version}/configure --prefix=%{_prefix} \ --libdir=%{_libdir} --mandir=%{_mandir} --infodir=%{_infodir} \ --target=%{target} --disable-nls --disable-werror \ --with-system-zlib make %{?_smp_mflags} popd %install pushd build make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT popd # we don't want these as we are a cross version rm -r $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir} rm -r $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/gdb # Should not be installed rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libavr-sim.a # no need for devel files rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir} %files %doc gdb-%{version}/COPYING* gdb-%{version}/README* %{_bindir}/%{name}* %{_bindir}/avr-run %{_mandir}/man1/avr-* %{_mandir}/man5/avr-* The %doc line is not correct, because it includes also COPYING* license files. However, both avr-gdb and your arm-none-eabi-gdb are not full compiler toolchains so perhaps many of the general cross-compiler guidelines can be relaxed. > I'm not sure about the right way to deal with it. Is there a standard(or > distribution-independent) path to place arch-specific header files when the package itself doesn't have a safe default path? Not that I'm aware of. Usually stuff goes into "/usr/include" or "/usr/local/include" and then into subdirs like "/usr/include/%{name}". > I have only seen similar things in /usr/lib like placing object files in > directories like x86_64-linux-gnu. But they still create possibly conflicting symlinks in /usr/lib . I also haven't learned about how to do this correctly for header files(maybe there is an config options like --libdir ?) I had a look at the gdb's "configure" script and there is an option for header files called "--includedir". > As I personally don't use it, is it OK not to install it and remove the whole > devel subpackage(which includes only this file)? I'd say you probably can remove the -devel subpackage. Headers if provided should sit in -devel subpackages, but I haven't seen a rule which would say that you always have to distribute them, unless they're required by the binaries to function. Notice that the avr-gdb package doesn't have a -devel subpackage either. -- 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected]
