| 1 |
On 10/17/2016 03:47 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based |
| 4 |
>>> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin' |
| 5 |
>>> for distinction." |
| 6 |
>> Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not address |
| 7 |
>> the problem of identifying packages that can be built from source, that get |
| 8 |
>> put in tree as binary, for what ever reason. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> Perhaps you can compile a list of such packages, as I would imagine QA |
| 11 |
> would be interested as to how 'widespread' this problem really is? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Off the top of my head I'm only aware of libreoffice-bin myself (and |
| 15 |
then it is a clear alternative to libreoffice if wanting the source), |
| 16 |
providing this as a binary is a convenience to end-users not wanting to |
| 17 |
spend 50 minutes on the compile. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'm wondering if it wouldn't make sense to provide this as a binary |
| 20 |
package in a binhost instead of a -bin though (thats what I use |
| 21 |
internally myself in any case). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 25 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 26 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives