On 10/17/2016 11:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote: >> >>> On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >>>> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin. >>>> NO more. >> >>> I don't see what problem you are trying to solve. Gentoo is a >>> source-based distro .. any binaries are a last-resort or most >>> certainly should be. Having a policy may be useful, but I see no >>> proposition on this thread yet? >> >> How about the following? I believe it is more or less the current >> practice: >> >> "Gentoo usually builds its packages from source. Exceptionally, >> a binary package can be provided instead (e.g., if upstream doesn't >> provide a source) or in addition. Such packages should still follow >> normal naming conventions and don't need any special suffix. > > I think this contradicts the next paragraph. The 'or in addition' is > followed by a statement that it doesn't need any special suffix. > >> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based >> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin' >> for distinction." > > I think this could collide with Chrome vs Chromium. One could call > Chromium a 'source-based equivalent' of Chrome, and therefore require > the '-bin' suffix even though the names do not collide. > > That said, I think I've seen a package somewhere using USE flags to > switch between source and binary version. Such a policy would require > it to change (and I approve that). > I think Chrome/Chromium is a special case as upstream calls their binary and source based releases by different names.
-- NP-Hardass
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
