1 |
I’m suffering from the fact that users can distinguish packages containing |
2 |
binaries just by eye. There is no mechanism to allow/ignore such packages. |
3 |
For license restrictions we have ‘package.license/’ whitelist. |
4 |
|
5 |
I figure out the following binary entities in portage’s packages |
6 |
that (to my point of view) need to be clearly defined as BINARY: |
7 |
1. *-bin packages (maven-bin, icedtea-bin) |
8 |
2. firmware packages (linux-firmware) |
9 |
3. purely binary packages that are installed without any notion |
10 |
they are binary or source packages just like Ubuntu’s ones |
11 |
(app-office/upwork) |
12 |
4. packages with pre-compiled bytecode/objectcode that are installed |
13 |
like packages in #3. |
14 |
(geogebra, many packages with .jar files in dev-java/*) |
15 |
5. packages with ‘-binary’ USE-flag. Semantics of ‘-binary’ differs: |
16 |
(seabios) binary : Use official upstream pre-built binaries |
17 |
(ghc) binary : Install the binary version directly, rather than |
18 |
using it to build the source version. |
19 |
(scala) binary : Install from (Gentoo-compiled) binary instead of |
20 |
building from sources. Set this when you run out of memory during build. |
21 |
(etc...) |
22 |
6. packages that need binaries to compile/bootstrap (sbcl) |
23 |
7. to be continued... I guess |
24 |
|
25 |
#1 semantics has no control. Such packages may be installed as a |
26 |
dependency |
27 |
without warnings they are binaries. |
28 |
#5 semantics are not clear (defined in manifest.xml) |
29 |
|
30 |
The only binary entities under users’ control are: |
31 |
1. packages from “PKGDIR” installed with ‘emerge --usepkg’ |
32 |
2. packages with -binary USE-flag |
33 |
|
34 |
I wonder if Gentoo’s devs can do something with the problem. |
35 |
I think it’s problem in source-based Linux distribution. |