On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:05:43 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> It is some what a moot problem, but I think it would be good to adopt such or > similar requirement, maybe in the PMS. Many already follow the -bin suffix > now. > I just do not believe it is a requirement anywhere. Which if that is the > case, > I am suggesting it should be. If a package is src_install only, no > src_compile, it should be required to have a -bin suffix, or -gbin if self > made. Yeah, I get the intent, but I don't see it being likely we'd ever have a real usecase for having both a -bin and a -gbin in tree together. If anything, I'd imagine if that case arose, it would manifest itself more as: icedtea-bin + USE=official Or similar, given the "deploy binary to system" steps are likely to be the same regardless of who built it. At best, I'd imagine users who care whether they get "official" binaries or "gentoo" binaries would probably prefer to select which as a sort of global policy, but that concept is just a doorway to additional complexity. So a strong argument would have to be made for being able to "select" between "Offical" and "Unofficial" binaries in an automated fashion before we go down that road to hell. ( I wrote an example case of how this could be done, and it quickly went pear shaped and I deleted it[1] ) 1: https://gist.github.com/kentfredric/c63e42937c90031834c525dcb6de0da8
pgpb6BVog3iOL.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
