Re: Reserving part of the package namespace
Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> writes:
> I'd like to ask for the current naming scheme for packages related to
> cross compilation (the suffix listing the target architecture name and the
> string "cross", e.g. "-arm-cross" for ARM targets) to be explicitly
> codified in policy.
>
> While it is unlikely that packages stumble on that namespace by accident,
> it would be nice to build a hook into apt that can automatically retrieve
> and convert packages required for cross compilation, and for such a thing
> to exist, there should be a bit of formal support for the assumption that
> packages named thus have some sort of connection to cross compilation and
> are coordinated with debian-embedded in some way.
>
> It is likely that there will be another proposal to deal with things like
> this post-lenny, but this change will allow for some cross-compilation
> support in lenny without being too intrusive.
>
> TL;DR: "-*-cross" suffix on package names is proposed to be magic.
windlord:~/web/eagle/reviews> apt-cache search -- '-cross$'
aboot-cross - utility to create bootable ISO-Images for Linux/Alpha
amiga-fdisk-cross - Partition editor for Amiga partitions (cross version)
atari-fdisk-cross - Partition editor for Atari (running on non-Atari)
dpkg-cross - tools for cross compiling Debian packages
apt-cross - retrieve, build and install libraries for cross-compiling
So it looks like the only currently affected packages for the most general
wording of such a constraint are amiga-fdisk-cross and atari-fdisk-cross
(since "fdisk" *could* be an architecture name), and there are no
conflicts if we limit it to only valid architectures.
I assume that * itself could contain dashes for architectures that don't
have single component names? For example, -kfreebsd-amd64-cross. How
would one disambiguate between that and a cross-compilation package for
amd64 that just has kfreebsd in the package name?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: