| 1 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 2:20:19 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, M J Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 17/10/16 08:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> To be clear I would suggest at MOST 3, -bin, -ebin, and -sbin. |
| 5 |
> >> NO more. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I don't see what problem you are trying to solve. Gentoo is a |
| 8 |
> > source-based distro .. any binaries are a last-resort or most |
| 9 |
> > certainly should be. Having a policy may be useful, but I see no |
| 10 |
> > proposition on this thread yet? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> How about the following? I believe it is more or less the current |
| 13 |
> practice: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I am open, seems some of the problem others are not even aware of, so likely |
| 16 |
other ways to go about things. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> "Gentoo usually builds its packages from source. Exceptionally, |
| 19 |
> a binary package can be provided instead (e.g., if upstream doesn't |
| 20 |
> provide a source) or in addition. Such packages should still follow |
| 21 |
> normal naming conventions and don't need any special suffix. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That some what goes against how things are now, if I understand correctly. It |
| 24 |
is suggesting a binary package would not require -bin. I think it should |
| 25 |
across the board for consistency. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> If a binary package is provided in addition to its source-based |
| 28 |
> equivalent, the name of the former should be suffixed with '-bin' |
| 29 |
> for distinction." |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Essentially what I would like to see in policy yes. Though it does not address |
| 32 |
the problem of identifying packages that can be built from source, that get |
| 33 |
put in tree as binary, for what ever reason. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives