[Fedora-packaging] Namespace for cross-compilation tools?

[Michael J. Knox]

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 19:39 +1200, Michael J Knox wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> 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. 
>> 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.
>>
>> 1) cross-rtems4.7-binutils-2.16.1-0.20051229.1.fc6.i386.rpm
>> vs
>> 2) i386-rtems4.7-binutils-2.16.1-0.20051229.1.fc6.i386.rpm
> 
> #1 Leaves out important information and will lead to naming conflicts.
> Is this cross compiler going to generate code for rtems on a i386?  A
> ppc?  A sparc?  We don't know.  Whatever naming convention is chosen
> must include (i386, rtems4.7, binutils) as part of %{name} otherwise the
> name is incomplete and will clash with other packages.

Ah of course, yes :)

> #2 Leaves the enduser browsing the package lists in the dark.  As Jason
> Tibbits wrote:
>> What is "i386" and why does it have a subpackage of "rtems4.7"?
> 
> This is partially because '-' is used as a separator in rpm packages
> (%{name}-%{version}-%{release}) and partially because we are conditioned
> to expect "i386" at the end of the rpm.
> 
> 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 separator"
> 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

Michael