| 1 |
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin. |
| 8 |
> >> NO more. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > I don't see what problem you are trying to solve. Gentoo is a |
| 11 |
> > source-based distro .. any binaries are a last-resort or most |
| 12 |
> > certainly should be. Having a policy may be useful, but I see no |
| 13 |
> > proposition on this thread yet? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> How about the following? I believe it is more or less the current |
| 16 |
> practice: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> "Gentoo usually builds its packages from source. Exceptionally, |
| 19 |
> a binary package can be provided instead (e.g., if upstream doesn't |
| 20 |
> provide a source) or in addition. Such packages should still follow |
| 21 |
> normal naming conventions and don't need any special suffix. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I think this contradicts the next paragraph. The 'or in addition' is |
| 24 |
followed by a statement that it doesn't need any special suffix. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based |
| 27 |
> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin' |
| 28 |
> for distinction." |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I think this could collide with Chrome vs Chromium. One could call |
| 31 |
Chromium a 'source-based equivalent' of Chrome, and therefore require |
| 32 |
the '-bin' suffix even though the names do not collide. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
That said, I think I've seen a package somewhere using USE flags to |
| 35 |
switch between source and binary version. Such a policy would require |
| 36 |
it to change (and I approve that). |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
| 41 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives