Re: [Openocd-development] RPM Build

[Zach W. <zw...@su...>]

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