| 1 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 8:57:30 AM EDT Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree to |
| 6 |
> > hopefully get less binaries that are from source. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > To start I just wanted to see about a policy for -bin, the other stuff was |
| 9 |
> > just extra after -bin itself was a policy. Unless it made sense to develop |
| 10 |
> > it in full, |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > -bin - Closed source binary ebuild |
| 13 |
> > -ebin - Self made binary from source |
| 14 |
> > -sbin - Binary ebuild of an open source package |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Let's also add -c for C programs, and -cxx for C++ programs. -py for |
| 17 |
> pure Python stuff, -cpy when stuff includes extensions compiled in C, |
| 18 |
> -cxxpy extensions in C++. We should also have special -x86asm suffix |
| 19 |
> for packages that rely on non-portable x86 assembly, or maybe even |
| 20 |
> -x86asm-sse when they use some fancy instruction sets. And then don't |
| 21 |
> forget to add a suffix for license, for GUI library (because obviously |
| 22 |
> nobody wants GTK+ software on KDE systems, nor GTK+3 software on GTK+ |
| 23 |
> systems). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Clearly being sarcastic as a binary is a binary. It doesn't matter what |
| 26 |
language, toolkit etc. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives