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

[Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org>]

-----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 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.
>> 

..

> 
> 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.

Sure it is, at least a reproducable build in order to compare and
ensure no malware being installed. I'm reading this more from a
security point of view than performance, and the question makes
perfect sense.

- -- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
Public PGP key 0xE3EDFAE3 at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWg8pgAAoJECULev7WN52FTnYIAJoUrTdQCH4FkfvGR1HLIS0B
SBg/GymkzWsWh0v2iTpW1RSG8R1fFbZn1sZwyKve5GOW+WaxQz5a5P731UiB5h5I
cHiy9FfoCSpDadNqIVhyx+NMB10W1yiPoe7sea98ZtYsAWlrpAEbfHtvHVcfveNg
HuxjAKu1cLil9XdZ9GHSMpEPcgq0LoKY2q3Mrq/J+XwUs1akSOa2NrX9QFSdpmJA
hbustOWRqqLWkCXrDwau19J1LuM8HPFoiviA00qGmvOtp+RcZT+1NuHRYFCR4wI9
W9eYj8zWs/HzcubmheuY0Mk6D3Jkp1nxrsgvq9uceXTZ0TUqqD3JZzWUX/vIV2k=
=vjF1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----