Not sure where this would go, likely in the PMS presently 3.1.2 package names, or some subsection. https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/head/pms.html#x1-210003.1.2
I have looked for other documents on this topic and have not found any. Specifically on any requirement or specification of file names. If they exist this might be already addressed. Topic Binary ebuild package name requirement Problem 1. There does not seem to be any file name requirement for binary packages. 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a Gentoo system. Like icedtea-bin for example, and likely some others. Suggested Solution 1. Require 3rd party binary package names be suffixed with -bin. Many are already named that thus require no change. A few package missing such may need to be renamed to such. 2. Require Gentoo made binaries have some other preffix, maybe -gbin. To represent not only is it a bin, but it is a Gentoo self made binary. Much less of these but would require some package renames. It is some what a moot problem, but I think it would be good to adopt such or similar requirement, maybe in the PMS. Many already follow the -bin suffix now. I just do not believe it is a requirement anywhere. Which if that is the case, I am suggesting it should be. If a package is src_install only, no src_compile, it should be required to have a -bin suffix, or -gbin if self made. I also think it is beneficial to clarify the type of binary, for bugs, and also maintaining the package. Others will need to know how to package a Gentoo -bin if someone moved on per se. Not so much with upstream made binaries. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.