| 1 |
On 3/5/11 11:05 AM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> What about handling chromium-bin the same way amd64 handles grub-static? |
| 3 |
> They create a standard binpkg of the normal grub ebuild (using |
| 4 |
> standardized USE flags, of course), using that as the source tarball for |
| 5 |
> the grub-static ebuild, which then simply ebuild-scripts the unpack and |
| 6 |
> install of the binpkg tarball. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That's the chromium-bin, really. The difference is that chromium has |
| 9 |
more deps and takes more time to compile than grub. Also, it has much |
| 10 |
more frequent releases, and almost every stable release is a security |
| 11 |
update. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> In theory, the ebuild could even grab and merge the appropriate binpkg |
| 14 |
> based on arch, allowing the ebuild to be keyworded for more archs than the |
| 15 |
> usual binary-only ebuild tends to be, altho I'm not sure that'd work in |
| 16 |
> practice as I'm unsure of the effects on the metadata cache and whether |
| 17 |
> that would be allowed or not. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yeah, I can understand how it could work technically. The only issue is |
| 20 |
to make the version bump one automated step. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. |
Archives