Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 23:19 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de>
writes:
> RC> Why?
>
> What is "i386" and why does it have a subpackage of "rtems4.7"?
>
> RC> This name is the name being used for GNU crosstool toolchains for
> RC> many years (> a decade). It corresponds to the target
> RC> canonicalization tuple internally being used by binutils/gcc/gdb,
> RC> and the autotools.
>
> So?
Yes. Target canonicalization tuples are standardized (In particular in
binutils, GCC and gdb) and shared between *all* projects using
config.guess and config.sub (I.e. all package using the autotools).
> We are free to make decisions for ourselves instead of blindly
> using someone else's naming convention.
Yes, it's our freedom to waste time on re- and over engineering parts
others have spend decades on.
A gcc cross compiler's components are called
<target>-<component>
You can even find traces of this in Fedora:
e.g.
/usr/bin/i386-redhat-linux-gcc
/usr/bin/i386-redhat-linux-c++
I.e. people will be looking for <target>-<tool>
> If the name is completely
> confusing (as it is to me) then surely we should talk about it before
> just stuffing it into the repository.
Would packages be called
i386-cygwin-gcc
or
i386-redhat-gcc
i586-suse-gcc
sparc-sun-solaris2.8-gcc
be confusing to you?
IMO, they are self-explanatory.
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
OpenSUSE uses cross-<arch>-gcc/binutils/whatever-version
debian looks like it uses gcc/binutils/whatever-<arch>-version
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.
Michael