Dr. David Alan Gilbert writes: > * Hakan Ardo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > That I had written: > > > > Personally I'd prefer that the name is passed-as-is to the gcc/binutils > > > configures; because I normally know what to give those to get what I > > > want. I'd agree with adding the -linux in if it was for everything, > > > but since this package has the ability to build for things Linux won't > > > run on (e.g. AVR - anyone fancy a small port....) I'd rather not do it > > > conditionally. > > > > I can see the point in that. Do we want the package names to be > > gcc-avr-linux and binutils-avr-linux as well instead of simply gcc-avr and > > binutils-avr? > > Erm no; avr to be gcc-avr, alpha-linux to be gcc-alpha-linux ?
assuming, that new Debian ports are made for bsd and cygwin, I would prefer including the os name, even for linux.