On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:11:18 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> 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? Can you think of any? I cannot see any operator wanting a binary of a binary, or a package of sources. When they already have a sources tarball. Maybe in the case of shipping binaries without sources. But I am not sure if an binary ebuild ignores SRC_URI entirely. I think moving binaries without needing the distfiles would be the only reason why an operator may prefer binaries of stuff that does not get compiled, just installed. > it can already be controlled through env files. I was thinking it might, but having used them to skip other hooks. I was thinking they could not be used as such for binary packages. Have you confirmed such is possible? Could you provide a link or example? Thanks! -- William L. Thomson Jr.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature