On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:  
> > On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:  
> >> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
> >> NO more.  
> > I don't see what problem you are trying to solve. Gentoo is a
> > source-based distro .. any binaries are a last-resort or most
> > certainly should be. Having a policy may be useful, but I see no
> > proposition on this thread yet?  
> How about the following? I believe it is more or less the current
> practice:
> "Gentoo usually builds its packages from source. Exceptionally,
> a binary package can be provided instead (e.g., if upstream doesn't
> provide a source) or in addition. Such packages should still follow
> normal naming conventions and don't need any special suffix.

I think this contradicts the next paragraph. The 'or in addition' is
followed by a statement that it doesn't need any special suffix.

> 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."

I think this could collide with Chrome vs Chromium. One could call
Chromium a 'source-based equivalent' of Chrome, and therefore require
the '-bin' suffix even though the names do not collide.

That said, I think I've seen a package somewhere using USE flags to
switch between source and binary version. Such a policy would require
it to change (and I approve that).

Best regards,
Michał Górny

Attachment: pgpxaN1O4yIaW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to