On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200 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. I think this contradicts the next paragraph. The 'or in addition' is followed by a statement that it doesn'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." I think this could collide with Chrome vs Chromium. One could call Chromium a 'source-based equivalent' of Chrome, and therefore require the '-bin' suffix even though the names do not collide. That said, I think I've seen a package somewhere using USE flags to switch between source and binary version. Such a policy would require it to change (and I approve that). -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpxaN1O4yIaW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
