| 1 |
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:41:13 -0400 |
| 2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin. NO more. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It would be far better to simply have a PROPERTIES field in ebuilds or somesuch: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
PROPERTIES="binary:upstream" |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
or |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
PROPERTIES="binary:gentoo" |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Assuming the right tooling, this allows a way to "canonically" define |
| 15 |
what the type of binary is, and allow people to make whatever choices, |
| 16 |
including automated rules. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
After you do that, you can deem a *convention* of adding -bin suffixes, |
| 19 |
but instead of making it a "rule", make it simply a pattern that people |
| 20 |
can follow if their package indicates they need suffixing. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This means: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
1. "bin" packages don't need "-bin" suffixes, because metadata will convey it |
| 25 |
2. ... however, you can still use a "-bin" suffix and its encouraged. |
| 26 |
3. packages that end with '-bin' suffixes, but *arent* binaries can be |
| 27 |
clearly identified as such via metdata. ( Imagine something like |
| 28 |
dev-util/recycle-bin ) |
| 29 |
4. any additional finessing of names to indicate what is going on can |
| 30 |
be decided by the maintainers in question, on a "as necessary basis" |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This means instead of "require this pattern" which will eventually |
| 33 |
result in useless chaos as packages rename all over the place, it will |
| 34 |
also avoid "require this pattern" where its not needed. ( neither |
| 35 |
www-client/opera, www-client/opera-developer, or www-client/opera-beta |
| 36 |
are source based, they're all binaries, unpacked from .deb's for crying |
| 37 |
out loud ) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
And we don't want to embrace visibly the idea that "free for all |
| 40 |
binaries!!!!" by having too many -bin packages in tree. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
We have to keep it balanced. |
Archives