[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:
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?
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:
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?
I always use something like: _target=i686-pc-mingw32 pkgname=cross-${_target}-gcc in all the cross compilers I package. Allan
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.
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.
Probably as good as second option, but cross prefix is annoying me.> 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