| 1 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 03:52:52 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/17/2016 03:47 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 4 |
> >>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based |
| 5 |
> >>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin' |
| 6 |
> >>> for distinction." |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not |
| 9 |
> >> address the problem of identifying packages that can be built from |
| 10 |
> >> source, that get put in tree as binary, for what ever reason. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Perhaps you can compile a list of such packages, as I would imagine QA |
| 13 |
> > would be interested as to how 'widespread' this problem really is? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Off the top of my head I'm only aware of libreoffice-bin myself (and |
| 16 |
> then it is a clear alternative to libreoffice if wanting the source), |
| 17 |
> providing this as a binary is a convenience to end-users not wanting to |
| 18 |
> spend 50 minutes on the compile. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There's also firefox-bin, which gets built upstream with profile-guided |
| 21 |
optimizations enabled. PGO is unsupported outside of upstream's build process, |
| 22 |
last I checked...but that was a few years ago. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
:wq |
Archives