On 10/14/2016 1:36 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>> Problem
>> 1. There does not seem to be any file name requirement for binary packages.
>> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is
>> not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by
>> compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a Gentoo
>> system. Like icedtea-bin for example, and likely some others.
>> Suggested Solution
>> 1. Require 3rd party binary package names be suffixed with -bin. Many are
>> already named that thus require no change. A few package missing such may 
>> need
>> to be renamed to such.
>> 2. Require Gentoo made binaries have some other preffix, maybe -gbin. To
>> represent not only is it a bin, but it is a Gentoo self made binary. Much 
>> less
>> of these but would require some package renames.
>> It is some what a moot problem, but I think it would be good to adopt such or
>> similar requirement, maybe in the PMS.
> I see no reason to specify a file naming convention like this in PMS.
> This isn't really a technical problem, but rather a Gentoo policy
> issue. Other repos/distros should be free to call their ebuilds
> whatever they like.
> Also, I don't think a file naming convention is the best way to
> implement this. I would suggest introducing a new piece of metadata:
> either an element in metadata.xml, or a global variable in ebuilds.

+1 for metadata.xml

For anyone who cares, it is easily parsed.


Reply via email to