On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: > 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.
I see no reason to specify a file naming convention like this in PMS. This isn't really a technical problem, but rather a Gentoo policy issue. Other repos/distros should be free to call their ebuilds whatever they like. Also, I don't think a file naming convention is the best way to implement this. I would suggest introducing a new piece of metadata: either an element in metadata.xml, or a global variable in ebuilds.
