| 1 |
2017-08-09 17:33 GMT+02:00 William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt-ml@××××××.com>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:07:04 +1000 |
| 4 |
> "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" <wraeth@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > > What then is the benefit? If what is installed is the same from |
| 7 |
> > > package manager or binpkg. Also your redistributing another's |
| 8 |
> > > package in binary format which may not be legally allowed. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > The difference is that how the package manager/ebuild installs the |
| 11 |
> > package may be better suited to the environment than what upstream |
| 12 |
> > expects (such as upstreams that install through a .run file) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I fail to see how basically skipping src_install and maybe some prepare |
| 15 |
> stuff that makes it better suited to an environment. |
| 16 |
> Can you explain that further? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> These packages are just exploded tarballs. I fail to see the benefit |
| 19 |
> to repacking those into another tarball to be exploded. At best |
| 20 |
> skipping src_install and/or prepare, seems to be the only difference. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
one such benefit is that the binhost is known and managed by someone you |
| 24 |
trust, SRC_URI point to the wider and dangerous internet. |
| 25 |
So please leave this as a configurable choice. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I see no difference in installing kernel sources via source ebuild or a |
| 30 |
> binpkg, pre-built ebuild binary. Other than the time it takes to |
| 31 |
> re-package the kernel sources into another tarball. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> -- |
| 35 |
> William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 36 |
> |
Archives