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

Michael J Knox michael at knox.net.nz
Fri Jun 16 07:39:03 UTC 2006

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. 
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
2) i386-rtems4.7-binutils-2.16.1-0.20051229.1.fc6.i386.rpm

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 for
> "<arch>-suse-linux".
> ... 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 
all bad

>> 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 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.



More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list