Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 5:00:07 PM EDT Austin English wrote:
> On 10/15/2016 05:32 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 10/14/2016 07:17 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >>> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >>>> Problem
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Is there a reason that this differentiation would matter?
> >>
> >> In my opinion yes, the following reasons at minimum
> >
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to include information on this in
> > metadata.xml rather than specifying it in the package name?
>
> Yes.

Part of the idea everyone is missing is time... It takes time to go look at 
information a package metadata.xml If the package is coming in as a 
dependency. Instead of just being able to visually look at the package name 
and know.

This is a binary package from upstream
This is a binary package from Gentoo

Without having to do anything. Doing such via USE flag, description or other 
means would require someone to stop and spend time they would not have to 
otherwise.

Also if many packages are binary, having redundant text in metadata.xml does 
not seem very beneficial. Very likely any text to describe such would be very 
generic.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.