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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
