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

[Michał Górny]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:

> Part of the idea is to help differentiate the types of binaries in tree to
> hopefully get less binaries that are from source.
>
> To start I just wanted to see about a policy for -bin, the other stuff was
> just extra after -bin itself was a policy. Unless it made sense to develop it
> in full,
>
> -bin - Closed source binary ebuild
> -ebin - Self made binary from source
> -sbin - Binary ebuild of an open source package

Let's also add -c for C programs, and -cxx for C++ programs. -py for
pure Python stuff, -cpy when stuff includes extensions compiled in C,
-cxxpy extensions in C++. We should also have special -x86asm suffix
for packages that rely on non-portable x86 assembly, or maybe even
-x86asm-sse when they use some fancy instruction sets. And then don't
forget to add a suffix for license, for GUI library (because obviously
nobody wants GTK+ software on KDE systems, nor GTK+3 software on GTK+
systems).

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>