On 09/08/17 10:43, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:29:40 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" <wra...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 09/08/17 04:20, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:32:48 +0200 >>> Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> - 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. >> >> There's also the fact that binpkgs may be manually installed exactly >> as the package manager would have installed it, rather than extracting >> whatever upstream supplies verbatim. > > What then is the benefit? If what is installed is the same from > package manager or binpkg. Also your redistributing another's package > in binary format which may not be legally allowed.
The difference is that how the package manager/ebuild installs the package may be better suited to the environment than what upstream expects (such as upstreams that install through a .run file) >> This includes things like any wrappers, desktop files or symlinks >> created by the ebuild, or other such downstream-isms. > > If it was made via package manager. If it was made via quickpkg, it > maybe different than if made by package manager. Using quickpkg can create different binaries depending on your options, but otherwise it should package any installed files as recorded by the package manager - provided you use inclusive options, there should be no appreciable difference as far as I'm aware. -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26
Description: OpenPGP digital signature