| 1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, William L Thomson wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 1:36:20 PM EDT Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I see no reason to specify a file naming convention like this in PMS. |
| 5 |
>> This isn't really a technical problem, but rather a Gentoo policy |
| 6 |
>> issue. Other repos/distros should be free to call their ebuilds |
| 7 |
>> whatever they like. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I was not sure if PMS was the right place. It may be better suited |
| 10 |
> in the devmanual. Though both seem to say the same thing, just more |
| 11 |
> verbose in devmanual than than PMS. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/ |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The devmanual has the same info as in the PMS including on the suffix |
| 16 |
> https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/head/pms.html#x1-300003.2 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That section is about version suffixes (like _beta or _rc), not about |
| 19 |
package names. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Which is why I assumed PMS was the proper place. They seem to be the |
| 22 |
> same at this time. None of it seemed Gentoo specific. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It doesn't affect operation of the package manager at all, so it |
| 25 |
certainly doesn't belong in PMS. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If anything at all, it would be a naming convention specific to the |
| 28 |
gentoo repository. Others' repositories can follow different rules. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ulrich |
Archives