Deal with the current status of binaries naming/distribution

[sergeyklay]

Hello,

As README says:

As Travis is moving towards a container-based infrastructure, hence sudo is not possible, EVM added support for Travis specific binaries (ends with -travis), which will be installed in /tmp.

Travis is deprecating the sudo: keyword and moves everything to the same infrastructure (sudo really selects between two infrastructures).

See: https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-11-19-required-linux-infrastructure-migration

So now, you can safely use sudo anywhere. Thus, I'm not sure why do we need Travis specific binaries (ends with -travis). I propose dot the i's and cross the t's and deal with the current status of binaries naming/distribution

/cc @sambrightman

[sambrightman]

With Travis moving away from containers again we do need to think about what we want to build. In addition, there are considerations like #115 and #108. I think for now the -travis builds will work fine also on non-container infrastructure? They are also convenient to build in Docker, and I'll soon merge a variation on #102.

I'm not sure if @rejeep has any thoughts on this?

[sergeyklay]

Oh, good news!

[rejeep]

We must have binaries to avoid compiling from scratch every time. I like being specific. We could (and have in the past) use -bin binaries, but it's very difficult to be generic. It's cheap to add new recipes if we want, so let's keep the -travis binaries.