On 10/14/2016 1:36 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: >> Problem >> 1. There does not seem to be any file name requirement for binary packages. >> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is >> not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by >> compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a Gentoo >> system. Like icedtea-bin for example, and likely some others. >> >> Suggested Solution >> 1. Require 3rd party binary package names be suffixed with -bin. Many are >> already named that thus require no change. A few package missing such may >> need >> to be renamed to such. >> 2. Require Gentoo made binaries have some other preffix, maybe -gbin. To >> represent not only is it a bin, but it is a Gentoo self made binary. Much >> less >> of these but would require some package renames. >> >> It is some what a moot problem, but I think it would be good to adopt such or >> similar requirement, maybe in the PMS. > > I see no reason to specify a file naming convention like this in PMS. > This isn't really a technical problem, but rather a Gentoo policy > issue. Other repos/distros should be free to call their ebuilds > whatever they like. > > Also, I don't think a file naming convention is the best way to > implement this. I would suggest introducing a new piece of metadata: > either an element in metadata.xml, or a global variable in ebuilds. >
+1 for metadata.xml For anyone who cares, it is easily parsed. Brian
