>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, William L Thomson wrote:

> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:36:20 PM EDT Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> 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.

> I was not sure if PMS was the right place. It may be better suited
> in the devmanual. Though both seem to say the same thing, just more
> verbose in devmanual than than PMS.

> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/

> The devmanual has the same info as in the PMS including on the suffix
> https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/head/pms.html#x1-300003.2

That section is about version suffixes (like _beta or _rc), not about
package names.

> Which is why I assumed PMS was the proper place. They seem to be the
> same at this time. None of it seemed Gentoo specific.

It doesn't affect operation of the package manager at all, so it
certainly doesn't belong in PMS.

If anything at all, it would be a naming convention specific to the
gentoo repository. Others' repositories can follow different rules.


Attachment: pgpMrWEZ4MjFK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to