1 |
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:11:18 +0200 |
2 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 08/08/2017 06:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
5 |
> > I make a lot of binaries for use on other systems, to expedite |
6 |
> > updates. It does not make sense for some packages to ever be a |
7 |
> > binary package. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Any particular reason this decision shouldn't be left to the operator |
10 |
> of the binhost rather than the package maintainer? |
11 |
|
12 |
Can you think of any? I cannot see any operator wanting a binary of a |
13 |
binary, or a package of sources. When they already have a sources |
14 |
tarball. Maybe in the case of shipping binaries without sources. But I |
15 |
am not sure if an binary ebuild ignores SRC_URI entirely. |
16 |
|
17 |
I think moving binaries without needing the distfiles would be the |
18 |
only reason why an operator may prefer binaries of stuff that does not |
19 |
get compiled, just installed. |
20 |
|
21 |
> it can already be controlled through env files. |
22 |
|
23 |
I was thinking it might, but having used them to skip other hooks. I |
24 |
was thinking they could not be used as such for binary packages. Have |
25 |
you confirmed such is possible? Could you provide a link or example? |
26 |
Thanks! |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |