On 05/06/2016 01:21 PM, Jeff Hollingsworth wrote:
> I agree this makes sense to have as one repo. The exact why it was
> split is long ago lost to me.
>
> I don't think the source tar ball size is an issue. I also think
> merging the cmake is a good longer term goal.
>
> The only thing that makes sense is to keep the RPMs separate since there
> could be situations where production machines need dyninst, but would
> not want the test cases.
Right now I have them bundled in the same source RPM, and the built RPMS
are different installable subpackages for the libraries, headers,
testsuite, etc. I do want to keep it this way.
Actually a unified CMake will help here, as right now I have to do a
fake install during the rpm %build phase for the testsuite, and then
it's done for real in the rpm %install phase. That's a gross hack, but
I didn't want to maintain separate source RPMs for them.
|
![[Computer Systems Lab]](http://www.cs.wisc.edu/pics/csl_logo.gif){kind=logo}