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
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
-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
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
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
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
