| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/08/2017 06:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I make a lot of binaries for use on other systems, to expedite updates. |
| 4 |
>> It does not make sense for some packages to ever be a binary package. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Any particular reason this decision shouldn't be left to the operator of |
| 7 |
> the binhost rather than the package maintainer? it can already be |
| 8 |
> controlled through env files. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Perhaps, but I could see some value in having some way to mark |
| 12 |
packages that don't compile anything. This could also overlap |
| 13 |
somewhat with the desire to track arch-independent packages for |
| 14 |
stabilization purposes. I could see it being useful to be able to |
| 15 |
obtain a list of all the binary packages in the Gentoo repo for QA |
| 16 |
purposes/etc as well. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Maybe it isn't a flag that outright blocks binary package building, |
| 19 |
but a way to mark such packages so that a user can apply a policy on |
| 20 |
top of this. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Whether it belongs in the ebuild, or in metadata, is another matter. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives