On Monday, October 17, 2016 03:52:52 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 10/17/2016 03:47 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > Perhaps you can compile a list of such packages, as I would imagine QA > > would be interested as to how 'widespread' this problem really is? > > Off the top of my head I'm only aware of libreoffice-bin myself (and > then it is a clear alternative to libreoffice if wanting the source), > providing this as a binary is a convenience to end-users not wanting to > spend 50 minutes on the compile.
There's also firefox-bin, which gets built upstream with profile-guided optimizations enabled. PGO is unsupported outside of upstream's build process, last I checked...but that was a few years ago. -- :wq
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
