On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 08:48 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 19:39 +1200, Michael J Knox wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
A "cross-i386-gcc" would be complete non-sense, because a cross tool chain depends on the OS and several components more. An i386-rtems4.7-gcc is something very different from a i386-cygwin-gcc or a i386-redhat-gcc or a i386-suse-gcc.
Again, this is a packaging name, not a binary target. Packaged as cross-arm-gcc for example, tells me straigh way what this package is. However, i386-rtems4.7-binutils doesn't help tell what it is. A fancy binutils? A binutils addon? I also think that having the arch (read i386 not rtems) in the name is not needed. RPM takes care of the arch.
- cross-rtems4.7-binutils-2.16.1-0.20051229.1.fc6.i386.rpm
vs 2) i386-rtems4.7-binutils-2.16.1-0.20051229.1.fc6.i386.rpm
#1 Leaves out important information and will lead to naming conflicts. Is this cross compiler going to generate code for rtems on a i386? A ppc? A sparc? We don't know. Whatever naming convention is chosen must include (i386, rtems4.7, binutils) as part of %{name} otherwise the name is incomplete and will clash with other packages.
Ah of course, yes :)
#2 Leaves the enduser browsing the package lists in the dark. As Jason Tibbits wrote:
What is "i386" and why does it have a subpackage of "rtems4.7"?
This is partially because '-' is used as a separator in rpm packages (%{name}-%{version}-%{release}) and partially because we are conditioned to expect "i386" at the end of the rpm.
I can see three choices:
- Ignore the enduser confusion and go with Ralf's naming:
i386-rtems4.7-binutils-2.16.1-0.20051229.1.fc6.i386.rpm
- Namespace the whole thing:
cross-i386-rtems4.7-binutils-2.16.1-0.20051229.1.fc6.i386.rpm
- Play games with the '-' to avoid the "it's an rpm separator"
association: i386_rtems4.7_binutils-2.16.1-0.20051229.1.fc6.i386.rpm
FWIW, I think #2 has the most precedent.
+1 on #2
-10 on #2 Redundant info, over engineering, featuritis. Users don't need to know it's a cross compiler/cross-toolchain nor do I see any need why this should be necessary.
-maxint on #3 confusing.
Ralf