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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:09:25 PM EDT Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 14/10/16 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Problem
> > 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.
>
> Is there a reason that this differentiation would matter?

In my opinion yes, the following reasons at minimum

1. Upstream binary little can be done if there are issues. Maybe changing 
things on the system, but cannot change what it was built/linked against etc. 
Bugs there would be filed against upstream, not really Gentoo as there is 
nothing that can be done to change the binary itself.

2. Gentoo made binaries can be remade if there are issues. Bugs on those 
should be filed against Gentoo rather than upstream. There is also a process to 
making those binaries. It may be as simple as emerging a Gentoo package and 
creating a tarball, or it may not. Others may need to know how to do such if 
someone moves on. Most times that is not documented, and people have no idea 
if the binary was made for Gentoo on Gentoo, or just re-packaged upstream.

3. The obvious reason to have a -bin in general, is to let anyone know they 
are merging a binary package. Which may or may not be wanted. Also shows what 
packages may need to be packaged from source if possible. People may choose to 
emerge a self made Gentoo binary more often than say a third party one. Since 
they know it was built on a Gentoo system, just saves them from having to 
compile themselves. They also may trust a Gentoo made binary more than one 
from upstream, but that is speculative.

Mostly reasons 1 and 2, 3 is a side benefit but not the major rational.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.