| 1 |
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:29:40 +1000 |
| 2 |
"Sam Jorna (wraeth)" <wraeth@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 09/08/17 04:20, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:32:48 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> - You might be applying local patches through /etc/portage/patches |
| 8 |
> >> that are distributed to all clients |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > This might be the strongest reason. Though would only apply to stuff |
| 11 |
> > like say kernel sources. Not sure what patches could be applied to a |
| 12 |
> > binary ebuild, -bin. A patch would not effect src_install per my |
| 13 |
> > understanding. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> There's also the fact that binpkgs may be manually installed exactly |
| 16 |
> as the package manager would have installed it, rather than extracting |
| 17 |
> whatever upstream supplies verbatim. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
What then is the benefit? If what is installed is the same from |
| 20 |
package manager or binpkg. Also your redistributing another's package |
| 21 |
in binary format which may not be legally allowed. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> This includes things like any wrappers, desktop files or symlinks |
| 24 |
> created by the ebuild, or other such downstream-isms. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If it was made via package manager. If it was made via quickpkg, it |
| 27 |
maybe different than if made by package manager. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives