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

[NP-Hardass]

On 10/17/2016 11:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:20:19 +0200
> 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.
>
> I think this contradicts the next paragraph. The 'or in addition' is
> followed by a statement that it doesn'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."
>
> I think this could collide with Chrome vs Chromium. One could call
> Chromium a 'source-based equivalent' of Chrome, and therefore require
> the '-bin' suffix even though the names do not collide.
>
> That said, I think I've seen a package somewhere using USE flags to
> switch between source and binary version. Such a policy would require
> it to change (and I approve that).
>
I think Chrome/Chromium is a special case as upstream calls their binary
and source based releases by different names.

-- 
NP-Hardass