| 1 |
On 07/15/20 07:01, Andreas Fink wrote: |
| 2 |
> ... |
| 3 |
> Searching for -bin does not help to find binary only packages. Two more |
| 4 |
> examples, which are binary only: |
| 5 |
> zoom, skypeforlinux |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Searching for -bin mostly (if not always) implies that there would be a |
| 8 |
> possibility to compile it from source. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> In my experience so far, every binary-only package does not have an open |
| 11 |
> source license. So mostly you'll hit a license issue and you have to |
| 12 |
> accept the license (/etc/portage/package.license) before you will be |
| 13 |
> able to merge the package. Any license issue should start make you |
| 14 |
> thinking what is going on, since it is a potential binary-only package. |
| 15 |
> Installation of these packages is inhibited by emerge, because you have |
| 16 |
> to accept the license first ;) |
| 17 |
> When I look into my /etc/portage/package.license file I get a good idea |
| 18 |
> of which packages are binary only. Not all of them are pure binary |
| 19 |
> packages, but it is a superset as far as I can tell. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> To conclude: You cannot find out if a package is binary only with |
| 22 |
> emerge. You have to do the research yourself, but |
| 23 |
> /etc/portage/package.license is a good starting point to find potential |
| 24 |
> candidates. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Cheers |
| 27 |
> Andreas |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
Yes, the license issue came up, and I pavlov-wise put the exception in. |
| 32 |
I repressed the suspicion that I shouldn't be doing that. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Thank you. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Is there an open-source way to view the contents of a rar archive? |
Archives