| 1 |
Bugger, after reading Sacha's last post and trying tbz2tool -split |
| 2 |
package.tbz2 I realise that the meta info is there, quite a lot of it! |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
You certainly don't get to see it parsing the file with mc |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I was wrong, my apologies. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
A tool to better parse that metainfo out of binary packages would be |
| 9 |
good. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 12:17:46 +1200 |
| 13 |
Nick Rout wrote: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> There is no meta-info AFAIK in a binary .tar.gz, so portage does NOT |
| 16 |
> know what CFLAGS, or USE flags it is built with. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Go ahead, use quickpkg to make a binary tarball of any package on your |
| 19 |
> system, then look tat the tarball. There is nothing to indicate USE or |
| 20 |
> CFLAGS. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> If you want to install binaries you have to know yourself what options |
| 23 |
> were used in the compile. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:08:13 +0100 |
| 27 |
> Ian Clowes wrote: |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> > A further interesting scenario might be to have a binary package |
| 30 |
> > available built with different USE flags to those on the target machine, |
| 31 |
> > and seeing if it gets installed or not. I guess it shouldn't. But then |
| 32 |
> > there's the CFLAGS issue as well, and I'm even more unsure how that's |
| 33 |
> > supposed to be handled. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> -- |
| 36 |
> Nick Rout <nick@×××××××.nz> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Nick Rout <nick@×××××××.nz> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives