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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to