Archives
Archives
| From: | "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@×××.org> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds | ||
| Date: | Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:47:09 | ||
| Message-Id: | 5804D654.8010100@iee.org | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds by "William L. Thomson Jr." |
||
| 1 | On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 | >> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based |
| 3 | >> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin' |
| 4 | >> for distinction." |
| 5 | > Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not address |
| 6 | > the problem of identifying packages that can be built from source, that get |
| 7 | > put in tree as binary, for what ever reason. |
| 8 | > |
| 9 | Perhaps you can compile a list of such packages, as I would imagine QA |
| 10 | would be interested as to how 'widespread' this problem really is? |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds | "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds | Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> |