"JO" == Jordan Ogas jogas@lanl.gov writes:
JO> We would like users to be able to run the test suite without JO> compiling. It seems like placing the test and example directories in JO> libexec/charliecloud may be a reasonable approach.
I'd suggest not doing that. If you expect someone to run it, put it somewhere where they can run it. That location would be /usr/bin, with data in /usr/share or %_libdir as appropriate. You probably also want it in a subpackage ("foo-tests" is a commonly used naming convention) so that users don't have to install it if they don't want it.
I recall there was some issue where there was a desire to keep the files together in some fashion. One common method of doing this is using a subdirectory of %_libdir (so /usr/lib64/whateverpackage) and then creating stub executables or symlinks in /usr/bin. For example, both chromium and libreoffice do this.
Interestingly, dnf has taken the odd step of putting executables in /usr/libexec and symlinking them into /usr/bin, which I personally find quite bizarre
JO> Question: is this something I could handle in the spec file, e.g., JO> move the test suite directories as part of the %install section of JO> the spec file?
Well, if you want anything to end up in the final generated RPM files then you must place them somewhere under %buildroot in the %install section, and then reference them in the %files section. Whether it's the projects build infrastructure which installs them or just some calls to cp is completely dependent on the software in question.
- J<