On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 23:20 -0400, Zing wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:14:28 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 08:48 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
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
FWIW, +1 on #2 speaking as an end-user aesthetic (i like the namespace cross-* gives me).
What does cross-* give you?
Do you care about the fact it's a cross compiler?
No, you don't. You don't want a "cross-compiler", you actually want a compiler targeting a certain target: You want a mips-elf-gcc or an arm-rtems4.7-gcc or a sparc-sun-solaris2.8-gcc.
Or what about a virtual provides of "crosscompiler" as a compromise?
Completely meaningless. There is are many cross compilers. Each of them is targeting one of many targets, so a "Provides: crosscompiler" would cause conflicts.
Ralf