On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 20:38 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
I was looking through the old review tickets and saw Ralf's submission of i386-rtems4.7-binutils. I don't believe that's a good name,
Why?
This name is the name being used for GNU crosstool toolchains for many years (> a decade). It corresponds to the target canonicalization tuple internally being used by binutils/gcc/gdb, and the autotools.
Also using $target as package prefix is convenient when browsing repositories, because all packages will be sorted neighboring in directory listings.
but I can't really think of what it should be named. binutils-i386-rtems4.7 is one possibility, but then the gcc package would end up as gcc-newlib-i386-rtems4.7 which isn't logically connected to the binutils package.
How about a "cross" namespace: cross-target-utility would give us cross-i386-rtems4.7-binutils and cross-i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib. From my view: <target>-{binutils|gcc|gdb|libc|newlib}
Prefixing these packages with "cross" to me is meaningless, because it's redundant.
Also remember: The applications inside are native (=Linux)applications, it's only that they target "a foreign system".
Ralf