On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 07:06 -0600, Dale wrote: > Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:44:55 -0600, Dale wrote: > > > > > > > That is when you compile it on another machine then install it on the > > > laptop. The -K option comes to mind here. > > > > > > > Which is what I think the OP was talking about. If you install one of the > > *-bin packages from portage, you are protected by the checksums in the > > ebuild digest. But if you create a binary package repository, there is > > currently no means of applying the same protection. So if you are > > administering machines at different locations and want to keep a single > > binary package repository so you only build once (remember, production > > servers may not have gcc installed), there is no means of checking that > > the downloaded package has not been tampered with. This protection > > applies to ebuilds and distfiles but cannot be applied to packages you > > build yourself. > > > > But he was responding to me mentioning Redhat and Mandrake which are > binary based. Maybe I took his original point wrong.
Exactly :) Neil correctly translated my pseudo-English to what I actually meant. I don't want to make Portage binary based. I just want to make Portage's binary package support more conveniently usable on big networks.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
