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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:47:00 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 17/10/16 14:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> 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."
> >
> > Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not
> > address the problem of identifying packages that can be built from
> > source, that get put in tree as binary, for what ever reason.
>
> Perhaps you can compile a list of such packages, as I would imagine QA
> would be interested as to how 'widespread' this problem really is?

That is a good task, but might be seen as finger pointing or tattling. I am 
already an outcast. I rather let others, at least there is some awareness now. 

Though not sure what QA can do in the absence of some official policy to 
enforce, beyond making requests.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.