| 1 |
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 07:06 -0600, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:44:55 -0600, Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > > That is when you compile it on another machine then install it on the |
| 7 |
> > > laptop. The -K option comes to mind here. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Which is what I think the OP was talking about. If you install one of the |
| 11 |
> > *-bin packages from portage, you are protected by the checksums in the |
| 12 |
> > ebuild digest. But if you create a binary package repository, there is |
| 13 |
> > currently no means of applying the same protection. So if you are |
| 14 |
> > administering machines at different locations and want to keep a single |
| 15 |
> > binary package repository so you only build once (remember, production |
| 16 |
> > servers may not have gcc installed), there is no means of checking that |
| 17 |
> > the downloaded package has not been tampered with. This protection |
| 18 |
> > applies to ebuilds and distfiles but cannot be applied to packages you |
| 19 |
> > build yourself. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> But he was responding to me mentioning Redhat and Mandrake which are |
| 23 |
> binary based. Maybe I took his original point wrong. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Exactly :) |
| 26 |
Neil correctly translated my pseudo-English to what I actually meant. I |
| 27 |
don't want to make Portage binary based. I just want to make Portage's |
| 28 |
binary package support more conveniently usable on big networks. |
Archives