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