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. J. -- Web [ Asking whether machines can think is like asking whether ] site: https:// [ submarines can swim. ] Made by www.earth.li/~noodles/ [ ] HuggieTag 0.0.24
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
