Re: [gentoo-dev] Need clear semantics for packages with binary entities

2015-12-30 Thread Zac Medico
On 12/28/2015 10:24 AM, trupa...@gmail.com wrote: > I’m suffering from the fact that users can distinguish packages containing > binaries just by eye. There is no mechanism to allow/ignore such packages. > For license restrictions we have ‘package.license/’ whitelist. We can use the PROPERTIES

Re: [gentoo-dev] Need clear semantics for packages with binary entities

2015-12-30 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 trupa...@gmail.com schrieb: | I’m suffering from the fact that users can distinguish packages | containing binaries just by eye. There is no mechanism to allow/ignore | such packages. | 7. to be continued... I guess 7. fonts which come precompiled

Re: [gentoo-dev] Need clear semantics for packages with binary entities

2015-12-30 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 12/28/2015 07:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:24:14 +0300 trupa...@gmail.com wrote: > >> I’m suffering from the fact that users can distinguish packages >> containing binaries just by eye. There is no mechanism to >>

[gentoo-dev] Need clear semantics for packages with binary entities

2015-12-28 Thread trupanka
I’m suffering from the fact that users can distinguish packages containing binaries just by eye. There is no mechanism to allow/ignore such packages. For license restrictions we have ‘package.license/’ whitelist. I figure out the following binary entities in portage’s packages that (to my point

Re: [gentoo-dev] Need clear semantics for packages with binary entities

2015-12-28 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:24:14 +0300 trupa...@gmail.com wrote: > I’m suffering from the fact that users can distinguish packages containing > binaries just by eye. There is no mechanism to allow/ignore such packages. > For license restrictions we have ‘package.license/’ whitelist. > > I figure out