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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

Not sure where this would go, likely in the PMS presently 3.1.2 package names, 
or some subsection.
https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/head/pms.html#x1-210003.1.2

I have looked for other documents on this topic and have not found any. 
Specifically on any requirement or specification of file names. If they exist 
this might be already addressed.

Topic
Binary ebuild package name requirement

Problem
1. There does not seem to be any file name requirement for binary packages.
2. There are binary packages that end in -bin, which is good. However it is 
not clear if that is an upstream 3rd party binary. Or a binary made by 
compiling a large Gentoo package, by a Gentoo dev or contributor on a Gentoo 
system. Like icedtea-bin for example, and likely some others.

Suggested Solution
1. Require 3rd party binary package names be suffixed with -bin. Many are 
already named that thus require no change. A few package missing such may need 
to be renamed to such.
2. Require Gentoo made binaries have some other preffix, maybe -gbin. To 
represent not only is it a bin, but it is a Gentoo self made binary. Much less 
of these but would require some package renames.

It is some what a moot problem, but I think it would be good to adopt such or 
similar requirement, maybe in the PMS. Many already follow the -bin suffix now. 
I just do not believe it is a requirement anywhere. Which if that is the case, 
I am suggesting it should be. If a package is src_install only, no 
src_compile, it should be required to have a -bin suffix, or -gbin if self made.

I also think it is beneficial to clarify the type of binary, for bugs, and also 
maintaining the package. Others will need to know how to package a Gentoo -bin
if someone moved on per se. Not so much with upstream made binaries.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.