On Monday, October 17, 2016 03:37:28 AM William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> 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.

And what about when a package is mixed? When it has a closed firmware blob, or 
a statically-linked helper utility? Often, you'll see that stuff get unbundled, 
but does that even make sense when the blob or helper utility is only used by 
that package?

-- 
:wq

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

Reply via email to