On wto, 2017-08-08 at 10:18 -0700, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:11 AM, 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? 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.
Does a package that builds documentation from sources count? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Description: This is a digitally signed message part