On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:20:19 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller 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:
I am open, seems some of the problem others are not even aware of, so likely other ways to go about things. > "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. That some what goes against how things are now, if I understand correctly. It is suggesting a binary package would not require -bin. I think it should across the board for consistency. > 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." Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not address the problem of identifying packages that can be built from source, that get put in tree as binary, for what ever reason. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
