[aur-general] Cross-compilers naming scheme
If someone hasn't spot it yet, we have mess with naming of cross-compilers in [community]. Currently there are 3 schemes: 1) $appname-$platform (gcc-avr and binutils-avr) The only problem I see is mingw32 (and related packages). While {gcc,binutils}-mingw32 looks fine, I don't know what to do with mingw32-pthreads, mingw32-runtime and mingw32-w32api. 2) $platform-$appname (mingw32 packages) My favorite. Seems to be most readable (IMHO) and can be easily applied to every cross-compiler. 3) cross-$platform-$appname Probably as good as second option, but cross prefix is annoying me. I've already discussed it with Alexander Rødseth, but Arch isn't a project for a few people. What do you think? Which option is the best one? -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/17/2011 04:29 PM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
I agree that this is a problem and I'm unsure whether to vote for 2) or 3). cross- is annoying as a prefix but makes the nature of the package rather clear. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJO7Lc3AAoJEDnkuHfmLrkVw0UQALZrF8yvgGGpLGOy4m9OlRnH HCUo196nRP992Q/FEwGA80Yq+o86ckosLbZMvEAoKEhuSMyesGGE5mbvNm/AloN4 dvR1WCptR/3OEYCqO3e5JkBqpaBrF0nsnUK/ZH+Obi+VMyWR5r7h7BIriROrVcP/ 3xzyC031QuRgyg3Srw8FArRS4rz957QWmn/79HNW2ZW9yT3eDcrL/aEXvE6vBNiH c/Ie9hJ3oL0VszmiRw2Vt7Hx6yVzdn7iy5s/FyPEpo2Ew70xiR/88nS5kAmAt3uT tHqSIISxbMRC1RxLU5oNo4JFHWPKLKxoJbQJgWwY/AKGDmSvc3OTbJFgBfBMehFK gGg+0SL7YloQjfGlwP1jbllV/qM//1v7N8o+nIyhBRgebUJ2yepVW6Pe8ja3CcG8 LnJw0xPl9VyrMexV1IjudE9+DevUEU6J2GtyzVb1CergJ1qeLsgLaRNveWdZoyzt 7jRa5QmYOhL4+n/FGErrVlui5DBcbU7vmq9fceYMQwKVGzZkPdUB3PlsCIZN+Th8 F0Ylo7IW6s8EuSrAMeq6daSZn2QCZhqt3AMgbagcoCZXBwK/gXAbMbq8EO1Sr06h GUDygCI58XM/YkFDqtcDWjUAYnjk3NztWURl43cR/6SrwMZhS41FLhssqdsZIknP IDWcITu9OfhLAmZJNYYP =0CHL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 18/12/11 01:29, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
I always use something like: _target=i686-pc-mingw32 pkgname=cross-${_target}-gcc in all the cross compilers I package. Allan
For number 3, it is nice in that it makes it very clear what the package is. That said, isn't that already covered by the description? I for one never explicitly install a package without first knowing what it is and why I want it, and I have a feeling I'm not in the minority on that one. I'm slightly more of a fan of number 1, since these are variants of the application, but I think its better just to get one naming standard and stick to it than to have something that everybody likes. The difference between 1 and 2 makes it just a matter of which feels nicer; both are easy to search for.
I would say that there is already a defacto standard setup from multilib: lib32-$appname. (Just installed a bunch of stuff from there to play Portal... :) -Patrick
If no one is opposed, I would like to suggest the second option. All cross-compilers aren't orphans, then: Jelle van der Waa is encouraged to rename avr packages. Sergej Pupykin is encouraged to rename cross-* packages. If they will be not renamed, I will rename them next week. -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
-
Patrick Buddeberg
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase