Ralf Corsepius wrote:
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.
Ok fair enough.
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.
Its not <whatever> it was /whatever/ implying insert cross tool here.
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.
1) 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
example 1 makes a lot of sense to me and is how I would expect to find
the package naming convention.
Also, is Fedora ever going to ship a cross compiler for SuSE? I doubt
it. A cross compiler for cygwin? I doubt it.
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.
I wont get into debian packaging, as I have the joy of looking after
several user space packages and a kernel package for work, but its not
all bad
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>.
Aye.. I use an arm tool chain for the xscale on a daily basis and you
are right, it is that is the naming convention of the tools. However, I
strongly disagree that this should be the naming convention for the
packages. As in my example, number 1 is much cleaner and obvious.
Regards
Michael
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
