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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:40:57 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:37:28 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> 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-ml@××××××.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.
>
> It doesn't matter for you. It may matter for others. Much like having
> binary signaled in name may not matter to others. Which is why in-band
> signaling is a bad idea.

It is already in practice now with regard to -bin suffix. It is just not 
consistent or policy.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.