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
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
