Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Austin English <wizardedit@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:00:27
Message-Id: f3827592-dfdd-7e47-a269-4434281a4b2e@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds by Kristian Fiskerstrand
1 On 10/15/2016 05:32 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
2 > On 10/14/2016 07:17 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
3 >> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
4 >>> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
5 >>>> Problem
6 >>>> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it
7 >>>> is
8 >>>> not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by
9 >>>> compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a
10 >>>> Gentoo system. Like icedtea-bin for example, and likely some others.
11 >>>
12 >>> Is there a reason that this differentiation would matter?
13 >>
14 >> In my opinion yes, the following reasons at minimum
15 >
16 > Wouldn't it make more sense to include information on this in
17 > metadata.xml rather than specifying it in the package name?
18 >
19
20 Yes.
21
22 --
23 -Austin
24 GPG: 00B3 2957 B94B F3E1

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package file name requirement for binary ebuilds "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com>