On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:20 AM, 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. > > 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."
+1 from me. Using the package name to make the binary package unique with respect to the source-based package makes sense to me. Using it as a more general indication of whether something is being built from source does not make very much sense to me.
