Re: -bin packages?

[Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:21:33AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:17:44AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >I hate to do this at this late point (and I *really* hate it when people
> >do it to me) but I didn't notice the slightly nonstandard practice of
> >naming the binary 'aspell-bin'.  I'd like to change that.  Otherwise
> >we have a base package which only contains source, which is also
> >unusual.  I'd prefer to "mv aspell-{bin-,}0.50.3-1.tar.bz2" and
> >put it at the top level of the aspell directory and move everything else
> >underneath it.
> >
> >Gareth, do you have a problem with that?
> 
> I just re-noticed that tetex also has a -bin package.
> 
> What do people think about this?  I would like to be consistent in package
> naming and it seems like most packages put their binaries in a package sans
> -bin.  There is an empty tetex package but I don't understand the need
> to complicate things this way.
> 
> XFree86 also does this and I am, again, not sure why it's needed.

I don't think it's needed.  It should be removed in favor of having the
default binary release in the base package.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.