Bug#917546: binutils-xtensa-lx106 is a wrong name
Am 29.12.18 um 19:37 schrieb Jonathan McDowell:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 07:26:12PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> Am 29.12.18 um 19:11 schrieb Jonathan McDowell:
>>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 05:41:47PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>>>> If it is plain Xtensa Diamond 106Micro, then it should have proper
>>>> naming. If there are some differences, it is better to know about it.
>>>> Seeking for Xtensa lx106 provides no usable result to get idea about
>>>> this architecture.
>>>
>>> I don't think we're going to come to agreement here. I've chosen the
>>> package naming that matches current usage. lx106 seems to be used
>>> extensively in the ESP8266 and not elsewhere, so if your concerns about
>>> variations are correct then that isn't stomping on a 106micro package
>>> option, or a different variation for the other 106Micro variants.
>>
>> A assume this kind of disagreement can be solve only by official
>> distribution regulations/conventions:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Tuples
>> https://wiki.debian.org/CoinstallableToolchains
>
> Those pages talk about triples for Debian multiarch compilers; we're
> talking about an embedded platform compiler here.
>
>> We are missing only architecture name. From my understanding lx106 is
>> just some name. It is not architecture name. Please provide
>> documentation if I'm wrong.
>
> As I have stated several times this toolchain is named after the
> standard toolchain for the platform. It does not appear to conflict with
> any other usage of the prefix. As such I'm not going to rename things; I
> don't believe that serves any useful purpose to our users.
>
> If FTP-master wishes to disagree that's of course within their rights,
> and they can reject the package from NEW. I'll take that risk; I think
> I've explained my reasoning throughout this ITP discussion.
For who ever it may concern:
My reasoning is following:
Xtensa is undocumented mess of assumptions and esoteric believes. This
discussion showed it just one more time. If some one will seek how to
support next chip running Xtensa, this person should start from scratch.
Even if it is plain unchanged platform provided by Tensilica/Cadence.
With nearly no help from any company to identify and sort things we
spread our man power to support in some case just same architecture or
variant.
I've got attention to this issue, only because it may cover architecture
of other package. After some investigation, I can say - no, it is not.
Alone the time needed to investigate what architecture it is and is it
similar with other arch, is an indicator for huge issues in this case.
For the archive, here is short summary for some of know chips using
Xtensa https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Xtensa, hope it will save time for some
one.
As independent review for this package i would suggest:
- please clean binutils-xtensa-lx106/debian/overlay. Convert it from dos
to unix formatting and create a diff against mainline projects. It will
help to see what was actually changed.
- please change the package name.
searching for existing accepted binutils for not linux will give:
binutils-arm-none-eabi
binutils-avr
binutils-h8300-hms
binutils-i686-gnu
binutils-i686-kfreebsd-gnu
binutils-m68hc1x
binutils-mingw-w64
binutils-mingw-w64-i686
binutils-mingw-w64-x86-64
binutils-msp430
binutils-x86-64-kfreebsd-gnu
binutils-z80
In most cases we use chip name or architecture. binutils-xtensa-lx106 is
confusing, lx106 is not official xtensa platform, not official chip name
and even not architecture specified in esp8266 documentation. It seems
to be some kind of tradition.
Since MIPS seems to have long list of architecture variants, similar
rule should be applied for Xtensa:
binutils-mips-linux-gnu
binutils-mips64-linux-gnuabi64
binutils-mips64-linux-gnuabin32
binutils-mips64el-linux-gnuabi64
binutils-mips64el-linux-gnuabin32
binutils-mipsel-linux-gnu
binutils-mipsisa32r6-linux-gnu
binutils-mipsisa32r6el-linux-gnu
binutils-mipsisa64r6-linux-gnuabi64
binutils-mipsisa64r6-linux-gnuabin32
binutils-mipsisa64r6el-linux-gnuabi64
binutils-mipsisa64r6el-linux-gnuabin32
It can be: bintuils-xtensa106mesp8266 or
bintuils-xtensa106micro-esp8266, which will be translated as "ESP8266
specific architecture based on Xtensa 106Micro"
Some one who will seek for all utils for 106micro should be able to find it.
- I would recommend to clarify real CPU architecture with Espressif or
Cadence. In case it is a plain Xtensa Diamond 106Micro architecture,
most of name related issues will be solved and this package will be
clearly interesting for other users.
--
Regards,
Oleksij
Reply to: