On Monday, October 17, 2016 03:52:52 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> 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.

There's also firefox-bin, which gets built upstream with profile-guided 
optimizations enabled. PGO is unsupported outside of upstream's build process, 
last I checked...but that was a few years ago.


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

Reply via email to