On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 23:20 -0400, Zing wrote: > 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). What does cross-* give you? Do you care about the fact it's a cross compiler? No, you don't. You don't want a "cross-compiler", you actually want a compiler targeting a certain target: You want a mips-elf-gcc or an arm-rtems4.7-gcc or a sparc-sun-solaris2.8-gcc. > Or what about a virtual provides of "crosscompiler" as a compromise? Completely meaningless. There is are many cross compilers. Each of them is targeting one of many targets, so a "Provides: crosscompiler" would cause conflicts. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging