| 1 |
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:24:14 +0300 |
| 2 |
trupanka@×××××.com wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I’m suffering from the fact that users can distinguish packages containing |
| 5 |
> binaries just by eye. There is no mechanism to allow/ignore such packages. |
| 6 |
> For license restrictions we have ‘package.license/’ whitelist. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I figure out the following binary entities in portage’s packages |
| 9 |
> that (to my point of view) need to be clearly defined as BINARY: |
| 10 |
> 1. *-bin packages (maven-bin, icedtea-bin) |
| 11 |
> 2. firmware packages (linux-firmware) |
| 12 |
> 3. purely binary packages that are installed without any notion |
| 13 |
> they are binary or source packages just like Ubuntu’s ones |
| 14 |
> (app-office/upwork) |
| 15 |
> 4. packages with pre-compiled bytecode/objectcode that are installed |
| 16 |
> like packages in #3. |
| 17 |
> (geogebra, many packages with .jar files in dev-java/*) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
And you already covered here how different the notion of 'binary' (or |
| 20 |
rather, 'pre-built') can be. There could be pre-built stuff that is |
| 21 |
arch-specific or otherwise of limited portability. There could be |
| 22 |
pre-built stuff that is portable. There could be pre-built stuff whose |
| 23 |
rebuilding isn't really meaningful at all. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Do you want to force rebuilding docs in every package? Do you want to |
| 26 |
force eautoreconf to ensure you don't run pre-built configure scripts? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Michał Górny |
| 31 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives