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
> > 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
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?