On 10/17/2016 03:47 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
>>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin'
>>> for distinction."
>> Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not 
>> address 
>> the problem of identifying packages that can be built from source, that get 
>> put in tree as binary, for what ever reason.
> Perhaps you can compile a list of such packages, as I would imagine QA
> would be interested as to how 'widespread' this problem really is?

Off the top of my head I'm only aware of libreoffice-bin myself (and
then it is a clear alternative to libreoffice if wanting the source),
providing this as a binary is a convenience to end-users not wanting to
spend 50 minutes on the compile.

I'm wondering if it wouldn't make sense to provide this as a binary
package in a binhost instead of a -bin though (thats what I use
internally myself in any case).

Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to