On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > binutils-i386-arm-%{version}-%{release}.%{dist}.%{target}.rpm?
> Confusing, because
>
> a) in repos, other packages from this toolchain will not be next to each
> other, i.e. hardly browsable.
Correct.
But the binutils will be together with the host binutils and other cross
compiler binutils.
That can be considered nice as well.
> b) How would you want to call other add on package for your toolchain?
> libc-i386-arm? libncurses-i386-arm?
glibc-i386-arm-elf probably.
But one could also go with prepending cross- to make the distinction
clearer.
> c) The fact your toolchain is running on i386's already is part of the
> rpm's NVR-$arch.rpm => the i386 is redundant and superfluos.
I thought about leaving it out, but considered it clearer to just name it
without having to force the user to shift his eyes to the right and look
for the arch tag.
> d) "arm" is an architecture and is not sufficient to describe a
> toolchain's target. A toolchain's target consists of more.
> In case of "bare metal toolchain" (No OS, no libc), this could be
> arm-elf or arm-bare-elf or even arm-coff.
You're right about that. I meant arm-elf, as this is what I was building,
but simply forgot about the -elf part.
regards,
andreas
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
