SRPMs

[Stephen Weeks]

> I don't think that including the .s file is so silly.  After all, if some
> shared library changes, it would probably handle that.
> It is always a bit confusing to know what `the source' is given the circularity.
> Perhaps the right thing would be to include the binary rpm in the source one.
> The notion being that you need the executable to build it.  On the other hand,
> we could just demand that people install the binary rpm first.

I'm happy with the last option.  One question though -- how do I build the RPMS?
The only way I can think of is to
	1. Build the NJ version of MLton
	2. Make sure the NJ version is at the front of my path
	3. Call rpm -ba (which calls make inside src/mlton)
The problem is in making sure that the right version of the compiler is used in
making the binary rpm.