Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 19:39 +1200, Michael J Knox wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
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
#1 Leaves out important information and will lead to naming conflicts.
Is this cross compiler going to generate code for rtems on a i386? A
ppc? A sparc? We don't know. Whatever naming convention is chosen
must include (i386, rtems4.7, binutils) as part of %{name} otherwise the
name is incomplete and will clash with other packages.
Ah of course, yes :)
#2 Leaves the enduser browsing the package lists in the dark. As Jason
Tibbits wrote:
What is "i386" and why does it have a subpackage of "rtems4.7"?
This is partially because '-' is used as a separator in rpm packages
(%{name}-%{version}-%{release}) and partially because we are conditioned
to expect "i386" at the end of the rpm.
I can see three choices:
1) Ignore the enduser confusion and go with Ralf's naming:
i386-rtems4.7-binutils-2.16.1-0.20051229.1.fc6.i386.rpm
2) Namespace the whole thing:
cross-i386-rtems4.7-binutils-2.16.1-0.20051229.1.fc6.i386.rpm
3) 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
Michael
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
