On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:14:28 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 08:48 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote: >> Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> > 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 FWIW, +1 on #2 speaking as an end-user aesthetic (i like the namespace cross-* gives me). Or what about a virtual provides of "crosscompiler" as a compromise? zing -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
