On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:32:48 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 08/08/2017 07:23 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > 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 > > - The machine you're installing it on might not have internet access > so you want to have the files stored in a single location for > wrapping it up. Not sure that would be any different between distfiles and packages. > - You might want an audit trail of installed packages, so using the > binary files on specific media ensures same copy is installed > everywhere Doesn't the manifest/hash aspect of ebuilds ensure that for the tarballs already? If installing same version, same tarball, Its all the same already. > - You might be applying local patches through /etc/portage/patches > that are distributed to all clients This might be the strongest reason. Though would only apply to stuff like say kernel sources. Not sure what patches could be applied to a binary ebuild, -bin. A patch would not effect src_install per my understanding. > On 08/08/2017 07:23 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > >> 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! > > try something like: > /etc/portage/env/nobin: > FEATURES="-buildpkg" > > /etc/portage/package.env/nobin: > sys-kernel/gentoo-sources nobin That may work, I was not thinking to negate. Trying it out now. But may lead me to another need... :) -- William L. Thomson Jr.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature