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. _______________________________________________ Dyninst-api mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/dyninst-api
