On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree to
> > hopefully get less binaries that are from source.
> > 
> > To start I just wanted to see about a policy for -bin, the other stuff was
> > just extra after -bin itself was a policy. Unless it made sense to develop
> > it in full,
> > 
> > -bin - Closed source binary ebuild
> > -ebin - Self made binary from source
> > -sbin - Binary ebuild of an open source package
> Let's also add -c for C programs, and -cxx for C++ programs. -py for
> pure Python stuff, -cpy when stuff includes extensions compiled in C,
> -cxxpy extensions in C++. We should also have special -x86asm suffix
> for packages that rely on non-portable x86 assembly, or maybe even
> -x86asm-sse when they use some fancy instruction sets. And then don't
> forget to add a suffix for license, for GUI library (because obviously
> nobody wants GTK+ software on KDE systems, nor GTK+3 software on GTK+
> systems).

Clearly being sarcastic as a binary is a binary. It doesn't matter what 
language, toolkit etc.

William L. Thomson Jr.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to