On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 17:04 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 23:19 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> RC> Why? > >> > >> What is "i386" and why does it have a subpackage of "rtems4.7"? > >> > >> RC> This name is the name being used for GNU crosstool toolchains for > >> RC> many years (> a decade). It corresponds to the target > >> RC> canonicalization tuple internally being used by binutils/gcc/gdb, > >> RC> and the autotools. > >> > >> So? > > Yes. Target canonicalization tuples are standardized (In particular in > > binutils, GCC and gdb) and shared between *all* projects using > > config.guess and config.sub (I.e. all package using the autotools). > > > >> We are free to make decisions for ourselves instead of blindly > >> using someone else's naming convention. > > Yes, it's our freedom to waste time on re- and over engineering parts > > others have spend decades on. > > > > A gcc cross compiler's components are called > > <target>-<component> > > > > You can even find traces of this in Fedora: > > e.g. > > /usr/bin/i386-redhat-linux-gcc > > /usr/bin/i386-redhat-linux-c++ > > > > I.e. people will be looking for <target>-<tool> > > > >> If the name is completely > >> confusing (as it is to me) then surely we should talk about it before > >> just stuffing it into the repository. > > Would packages be called > > i386-cygwin-gcc > > or > > i386-redhat-gcc > > i586-suse-gcc > > sparc-sun-solaris2.8-gcc > > > > be confusing to you? > > > > IMO, they are self-explanatory. > > Why is the binary target name being used for the package name? That's > not intuitive to an end user at all IMHO. > > I think confusing the binary target name with the actual package name is > a mistake. > > gcc is gcc, not i386-redhat-linux-gcc Wrong. What you have installed is an i386-redhat-linux-gcc rsp. a x86-68-redhat-linux-gcc (more precisely, a GCC having been configured for host=<arch>-redhat-linux). As this gcc also is the native gcc, it also is being installed as "gcc", which justifies the package to be called gcc. > OpenSUSE uses cross-<arch>-gcc/binutils/whatever-version > debian looks like it uses gcc/binutils/whatever-<arch>-version What is the <whatever>? That's the essential part of it. 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. I presume they are abbreviating and using <arch> as a synonym for "<arch>-suse-linux". ... Debian ..., their packaging is the worst of all possible choices. It's neither browsable, nor complete nor correct, nor current. Basically looks like rotten packages to me. > Personally I like the cross-prefix, its a lot more obvious to an end > user what the package is and is for, but thats just me. Everybody being used to cross tool chains, knows that the tools insided are called <target>-<tools>. Finally a different view on this issue: A GNU cross toolchain consists of several packages which comes in different, multiple incarnations. Packaging-wise, this situation is not any different from packages which can be built against different base infrastructures, say: xorg-mydriver vs. xfree-mydriver gnome-coolguitool vs. kde-coolguitool perl-XXXX perl7-XXXX or (Real world example) Coin2-* vs. Inventor-* Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
