From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1G8fWa-0004pc-WB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:54:17 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k73FrPYN000728; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:53:25 GMT Received: from forum.psychotherapie.org (s15216962.onlinehome-server.info [217.160.22.205]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k73FoKmA019171 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:50:20 GMT Received: (from uucp@localhost) by forum.psychotherapie.org (8.13.3/8.13.3/SuSE Linux 0.7) with UUCP id k73FoJTo019567 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:50:19 +0200 Received: (from weigelt@localhost) by metux.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) id k73FnXYu002260 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:49:33 +0200 Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:49:33 +0200 From: Enrico Weigelt To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] net-im/aim masked for removal Message-ID: <20060803154933.GB19696@nibiru.local> References: <44CE343E.5030208@gentoo.org> <20060802231212.GC16921@nibiru.local> <200608021618.08898.electronerd@electronerdia.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200608021618.08898.electronerd@electronerdia.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Archives-Salt: 6c830f1b-e2bb-457e-8614-d77dd2512136 X-Archives-Hash: d8a189182ad13a65abba72de94b59bc7 * John Myers schrieb: > On Wednesday 02 August 2006 16:12, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > * Donnie Berkholz schrieb: > > > I've masked net-im/aim, AOL's proprietary offering. It hasn't seen a > > > release in years, it's binary-only, and it's far less capable than any > > > other client out there. > > > > BTW: could be introduce an separate (optional) masking method > > for such proprietary stuff ? > > > I believe (don't have time to check right now) you'll want to > look into ACCEPT_LICENSE Not necessarily. Licenses are not the only reason why someone likes to kick off binary-only packages. Also matters of stability, binary compatibility performance, etc. For example an statically-linked package (not compiled by gentoo devs) can introduce stability issues on hardly optimized systems, ie. libc w/o old ABIs, trimmed calling convention (enforced register passing), etc, etc. There're lots of things which can be optimized that break the ABIs. Binary-Only packages have a large risk of failing here. As an power-user (whom I have to be to know how to actually use these optimizations ;-)) I'd like to have a switch to kick 'em off or at least let emerge warn me. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list