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

[Mike Gilbert]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
> Problem
> 1. There does not seem to be any file name requirement for binary packages.
> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is
> not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by
> compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a Gentoo
> system. Like icedtea-bin for example, and likely some others.
>
> Suggested Solution
> 1. Require 3rd party binary package names be suffixed with -bin. Many are
> already named that thus require no change. A few package missing such may need
> to be renamed to such.
> 2. Require Gentoo made binaries have some other preffix, maybe -gbin. To
> represent not only is it a bin, but it is a Gentoo self made binary. Much less
> of these but would require some package renames.
>
> It is some what a moot problem, but I think it would be good to adopt such or
> similar requirement, maybe in the PMS.

I see no reason to specify a file naming convention like this in PMS.
This isn't really a technical problem, but rather a Gentoo policy
issue. Other repos/distros should be free to call their ebuilds
whatever they like.

Also, I don't think a file naming convention is the best way to
implement this. I would suggest introducing a new piece of metadata:
either an element in metadata.xml, or a global variable in ebuilds.