Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cross-compiling tools package guidelines"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Out of path executables)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
==Out of path executables==
 
==Out of path executables==
 
Where would these go?  binutils buts its biniaries (without the target in their name) in /usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/i686-pc-mingw32/bin.  It is a bit unwieldy but seems OK... Maybe just use /usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/bin (i.e. ${_target}/bin)?  [[User:Allan|Allan]] 22:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
 
Where would these go?  binutils buts its biniaries (without the target in their name) in /usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/i686-pc-mingw32/bin.  It is a bit unwieldy but seems OK... Maybe just use /usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/bin (i.e. ${_target}/bin)?  [[User:Allan|Allan]] 22:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
The default location seems to unrememberable. The ''/usr/lib/cross-${_target}/bin/'' is definetely better, but still... What about ''/usr/bin/cross/${_target}'' (I know it is a minor difference to ''/usr/lib'' but somehow I would expect user executables inside ''/usr/bin'')?
 +
 +
I was not able to reproduce it now, but I think that with some <code>./configure</code> settings, not all executables have their not-prefixed-counterparts in ''/usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/i686-pc-mingw32/bin'' so we would need to do some symlinks anyway.
 +
--[[User:Hotspur|Hotspur]] 06:31, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 10:31, 16 October 2009

Package Naming

Should the packages contain the entire target in their name? The current naming suggest is not used in the example PKGBUILD. Allan 22:57, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Out of path executables

Where would these go? binutils buts its biniaries (without the target in their name) in /usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/i686-pc-mingw32/bin. It is a bit unwieldy but seems OK... Maybe just use /usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/bin (i.e. ${_target}/bin)? Allan 22:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

The default location seems to unrememberable. The /usr/lib/cross-${_target}/bin/ is definetely better, but still... What about /usr/bin/cross/${_target} (I know it is a minor difference to /usr/lib but somehow I would expect user executables inside /usr/bin)?

I was not able to reproduce it now, but I think that with some ./configure settings, not all executables have their not-prefixed-counterparts in /usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/i686-pc-mingw32/bin so we would need to do some symlinks anyway. --Hotspur 06:31, 16 October 2009 (EDT)