> On 6 Aug 2020, at 10:10, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > How about I float a suggestion? We could append "_binary" to the name. > Otherwise leave the categories, notes, etc as they are now.
Could all of the “cask” ports be put in a second ports tree? Any source-based ports that wanted to depend on those would also need to go in that tree or at least couldn’t be in the source-only tree. The tree wouldn’t ship by default, or at least would have to be enabled (“uncommented”) in a config file. The downside to this is that I could see it quickly becoming like the Fink “unstable” tree if something popular is only available as a “binary” and that or something that depends on it becomes popular. Personally, I dislike the idea of a port name suffix, but an attribute that could be searched for is a good idea. -- arno s hautala /-| a...@alum.wpi.edu pgp b2c9d448
