Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:32:27
Message-Id: 28258449-f25d-e4f3-929f-bcd14c7ef491@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds by "William L. Thomson Jr."
1 On 10/14/2016 07:17 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
2 > On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
3 >> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
4 >>> Problem
5 >>> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it
6 >>> is
7 >>> not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by
8 >>> compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a
9 >>> Gentoo system. Like icedtea-bin for example, and likely some others.
10 >>
11 >> Is there a reason that this differentiation would matter?
12 >
13 > In my opinion yes, the following reasons at minimum
14
15 Wouldn't it make more sense to include information on this in
16 metadata.xml rather than specifying it in the package name?
17
18 --
19 Kristian Fiskerstrand
20 OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
21 fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds Austin English <wizardedit@g.o>