On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 08:48 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote:
> 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
-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
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
