Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Why is the binary target name being used for the package name?
> not intuitive to an end user at all IMHO.
> I think confusing the binary target name with the actual package name is
> a mistake.
> gcc is gcc, not i386-redhat-linux-gcc
Wrong. What you have installed is an i386-redhat-linux-gcc rsp. a
x86-68-redhat-linux-gcc (more precisely, a GCC having been configured
for host=<arch>-redhat-linux). As this gcc also is the native gcc, it
also is being installed as "gcc", which justifies the package to be
Ok fair enough.
> OpenSUSE uses cross-<arch>-gcc/binutils/whatever-version
> debian looks like it uses gcc/binutils/whatever-<arch>-version
What is the <whatever>? That's the essential part of it.
Its not <whatever> it was /whatever/ implying insert cross tool here.
A "cross-i386-gcc" would be complete non-sense, because a
chain depends on the OS and several components more. An
i386-rtems4.7-gcc is something very different from a i386-cygwin-gcc or
a i386-redhat-gcc or a i386-suse-gcc.
Again, this is a packaging name, not a binary target. Packaged as
cross-arm-gcc for example, tells me straigh way what this package is.
However, i386-rtems4.7-binutils doesn't help tell what it is. A fancy
binutils? A binutils addon? I also think that having the arch (read i386
not rtems) in the name is not needed. RPM takes care of the arch.
example 1 makes a lot of sense to me and is how I would expect to find
the package naming convention.
Also, is Fedora ever going to ship a cross compiler for SuSE? I doubt
it. A cross compiler for cygwin? I doubt it.
I presume they are abbreviating and using <arch> as a synonym
... Debian ..., their packaging is the worst of all possible choices.
It's neither browsable, nor complete nor correct, nor current.
Basically looks like rotten packages to me.
I wont get into debian packaging, as I have the joy of looking after
several user space packages and a kernel package for work, but its not
> Personally I like the cross-prefix, its a lot more obvious to an
> user what the package is and is for, but thats just me.
Everybody being used to cross tool chains, knows that the tools insided
are called <target>-<tools>.
Aye.. I use an arm tool chain for the xscale on a daily basis and you
are right, it is that is the naming convention of the tools. However, I
strongly disagree that this should be the naming convention for the
packages. As in my example, number 1 is much cleaner and obvious.