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

[Mike Gilbert]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote:
>
>> On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin.
>>> NO more.
>
>> I don't see what problem you are trying to solve. Gentoo is a
>> source-based distro .. any binaries are a last-resort or most
>> certainly should be. Having a policy may be useful, but I see no
>> proposition on this thread yet?
>
> How about the following? I believe it is more or less the current
> practice:
>
> "Gentoo usually builds its packages from source. Exceptionally,
> a binary package can be provided instead (e.g., if upstream doesn't
> provide a source) or in addition. Such packages should still follow
> normal naming conventions and don't need any special suffix.
>
> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based
> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin'
> for distinction."

+1 from me.

Using the package name to make the binary package unique with respect
to the source-based package makes sense to me. Using it as a more
general indication of whether something is being built from source
does not make very much sense to me.