Peter Lemenkov wrote:
I plan to add arm-toolchain into Fedora and encountered a difficulty -
how to properly name the package? From what I found in the Internets,
the cross-toolchains *often* named with the following prefix:
However sometimes they named differently (arm-none-eabi-,
arm-uclinuxeabi-, etc). Some cross-compilers already included into
Fedora, and their packages naming schemes are also different - some
examples of prefixes are arm-gp2x-linux-, avr-, msp430-, spu-
(mingw32 differs from others because it, at least, implies target OS
I'm sure, it's time to create unified rules for packaging of
cross-toolchains, but right now I'm asking you for help in proper
naming of it. Should we name it as <arch>-<vendor>-<operating
IM(NS)HO: basically yes.
It's the clearest and least confusing from.
or should we use some other naming schemes? What
values should be used for <vendor> - "fedora" maybe?
O should we simply drop this field ("unknown")?
GCC's canonicalization triples (the triples passed as --target=<..> when
configuring a cross-toolchain) are standardized and can not be chosen at
What occasionally confuses people is the fact that for some targets
abbreviations exist rsp. and that theses triples exit in an "external"
(often abbreviated) and "internal" (fully expanded) form.