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

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1373 bytes --]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:24:14 +0300
trupanka@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 the following binary entities in portage’s packages
> that (to my point of view) need to be clearly defined as BINARY:
> 1. *-bin packages (maven-bin, icedtea-bin)
> 2. firmware packages (linux-firmware)
> 3. purely binary packages that are installed without any notion
> they are binary or source packages just like Ubuntu’s ones
> (app-office/upwork)
> 4. packages with pre-compiled bytecode/objectcode that are installed
> like packages in #3.
> (geogebra, many packages with .jar files in dev-java/*)

And you already covered here how different the notion of 'binary' (or
rather, 'pre-built') can be. There could be pre-built stuff that is
arch-specific or otherwise of limited portability. There could be
pre-built stuff that is portable. There could be pre-built stuff whose
rebuilding isn't really meaningful at all.

Do you want to force rebuilding docs in every package? Do you want to
force eautoreconf to ensure you don't run pre-built configure scripts?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]