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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 9:52:24 AM EDT William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> 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.

By the way, even if a list is produced of binary packages in tree that can be 
built from source. It likely is not addressing the real issue.

Why are the not built from source?

Because they are large, complex, and require many un-packaged dependencies. 
Not to mention most tend to be Java. Which the more Java is neglected, more 
dependencies not packaged. The more binaries will be put in tree because it is 
cyclical. Things to package the large complex source are not, so people just 
stick it in tree as a binary.

It is simply to much work to package from source. Though that argument could 
be said about any aspect of Gentoo. It really comes down to a lack of man 
power, so corners get cut.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.