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
>> > 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).
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
Completely meaningless. There is are many cross compilers. Each of
is targeting one of many targets, so a "Provides: crosscompiler" would