1 |
On 10/14/2016 1:36 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
3 |
> <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>> Problem |
5 |
>> 1. There does not seem to be any file name requirement for binary packages. |
6 |
>> 2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is |
7 |
>> not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by |
8 |
>> compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a Gentoo |
9 |
>> system. Like icedtea-bin for example, and likely some others. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Suggested Solution |
12 |
>> 1. Require 3rd party binary package names be suffixed with -bin. Many are |
13 |
>> already named that thus require no change. A few package missing such may need |
14 |
>> to be renamed to such. |
15 |
>> 2. Require Gentoo made binaries have some other preffix, maybe -gbin. To |
16 |
>> represent not only is it a bin, but it is a Gentoo self made binary. Much less |
17 |
>> of these but would require some package renames. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> It is some what a moot problem, but I think it would be good to adopt such or |
20 |
>> similar requirement, maybe in the PMS. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I see no reason to specify a file naming convention like this in PMS. |
23 |
> This isn't really a technical problem, but rather a Gentoo policy |
24 |
> issue. Other repos/distros should be free to call their ebuilds |
25 |
> whatever they like. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Also, I don't think a file naming convention is the best way to |
28 |
> implement this. I would suggest introducing a new piece of metadata: |
29 |
> either an element in metadata.xml, or a global variable in ebuilds. |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
+1 for metadata.xml |
33 |
|
34 |
For anyone who cares, it is easily parsed. |
35 |
|
36 |
Brian |