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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:29:15 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
>
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
> > You actually came up with one I was not considering at first but provides
> > a
> > direct technical benefit you cannot achieve with a USE flag.
> >
> > > If anything, I'd imagine if that case arose, it would manifest itself
> > > more
> > >
> > > as:
> > >    icedtea-bin + USE=official
> >
> > Then how would you test that against non official? You cannot install the
> > same package twice at the same time with different USE flags. You can't
> > even make binaries easily of the same package with different USE flags.
> > The previous binary will get overwritten.
>
> You know you can make that argument about *every* useflag right? Being
> unable to test with one and the other co-installed?

Did you see the comment where portage has this function now?
 
> What are the benefits.

Knowing what you are getting in seconds, made by whom.

> If Upstream and Gentoo both provide binary releases, but the Gentoo one
> sucks, we should just abolish the Gentoo one.
>
> If Upstream and Gentoo both provide binary releases, but upstreams
> sucks, then we should not ship the upstream version.

What if you simply just do not know who made the binary?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.