On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 19:39 +1200, Michael J Knox wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Why is the binary target name being used for the package name? That's
>> 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
> called gcc.
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 cross tool
> 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.
"arm-gcc" is complete non-sense, whether as a package name or as a
Again, the even the fact it is a cross compiler doesn't matter. It's a
If one thinks your thought to an end, one ends up with any native into
However, i386-rtems4.7-binutils doesn't help tell what it is. A fancy
binutils? A binutils addon?
With all due respect, now I can't resort to have
doubts on your
I also think that having the arch (read i386
not rtems) in the name is not needed.
You have not understood.
The package contain a cross-tool chain, i.e. native i386-redhat-linux
applications having been configured to support binaries on other OSs
RPM takes care of the arch.
Nope, rpm only takes care about
the build arch. It doesn't take care
about target or host architectures
You are mixing up host and target.
example 1 makes a lot of sense to me
Again, you are missing the point.
cross-rtems4.7 is insufficient and is nonsense.
There are many rtems cross toolschains, each of them addressing
different <arch>-rtems permutations (e.g. sparc-rtems4.7, or
mips-rtems4.7). They all contain native linux applications, but generate
code/objs for different OSes/architectures.
Also, is Fedora ever going to ship a cross compiler for SuSE? I doubt
it. A cross compiler for cygwin?
Do you want me to submit them? I have Fedora->FreeBSD6|Solaris5.7|MinGW|
Cygwin and ca. 8 rtems targets pending?
Due to license restrictions, Solaris won't ever go to the public, but I
may very well submit the others
I also could Canadian crossbuild Cygwin/MinGW rpms, of these toolchains,
but ... I am not interesting in promoting these OSes.
>> Personally I like the cross-prefix, its a lot more obvious
to an end
>> 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
are right, it is that is the naming convention of the tools.
RTEMS Steering Committee Member mailto:email@example.com
GCC Maintainer mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org