Will, If you pull from CVS for both libpfm/pfmon you will have a version that has the latest changes from Phil. Would that be enough to direct the libraries in the right place from the .spec file?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 04:02:18PM -0400, William Cohen wrote: > For installation on 64 bit machines the libraries are typically placed in > /usr/lib64 rather than /usr/lib. On machines that have both 32-bit and > 64-bit code, e.g. x86-64 machine. Having both 32-bit and 64 bit versions go > into /usr/lib is a problem, because the .a and .so files are different. The > config.mk should be able to place things in the correct directory. There is > a Red Hat bug report on this: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205221 > > For the time being I have a quick workaround in the libpfm.spec file for > 3.2-0.060621.10 to move the installed directory into the correct place for > the generated RPMs. However, this doesn't work too well for development > work where libpfm is directly installing the files. Looking how other > packages do this they generally use configure to set things up > appropriately. Would it be a good idea to have a commandline configure to > set this type of thing up for libpfm? > > -Will > _______________________________________________ > perfmon mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/perfmon/ -- -Stephane _______________________________________________ perfmon mailing list [email protected] http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/perfmon/
