From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D11821396D0 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 01:06:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 767EFE0E63; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 01:06:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12979E0E56 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 01:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.61.74.72] (watch.civica.com.au [203.56.2.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: wraeth) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E9D03418F9 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 01:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <51802e5c-2dc2-3f08-e570-f6572a10dd33@gentoo.org> From: "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" Message-ID: <61c59979-fc8d-9978-3d21-a2f66edb8f04@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:07:04 +1000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HjdlVPa9QddFEWRXlACvtqmCVDF1BlvAv" X-Archives-Salt: af69bc83-7469-4d95-9cc1-ad1109fc9df6 X-Archives-Hash: fa85f63ecde6ece89392cd33ed3aeea7 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --HjdlVPa9QddFEWRXlACvtqmCVDF1BlvAv Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nK2werE6p7TWPBGxqdGa65gUuIi4s4aVg"; protected-headers="v1" From: "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <61c59979-fc8d-9978-3d21-a2f66edb8f04@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation References: <51802e5c-2dc2-3f08-e570-f6572a10dd33@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: --nK2werE6p7TWPBGxqdGa65gUuIi4s4aVg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-AU Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 09/08/17 10:43, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:29:40 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: >=20 >> On 09/08/17 04:20, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:32:48 +0200 >>> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: =20 >>>> - You might be applying local patches through /etc/portage/patches >>>> that are distributed to all clients =20 >>> >>> This might be the strongest reason. Though would only apply to stuff >>> like say kernel sources. Not sure what patches could be applied to a >>> binary ebuild, -bin. A patch would not effect src_install per my >>> understanding. =20 >> >> There's also the fact that binpkgs may be manually installed exactly >> as the package manager would have installed it, rather than extracting= >> whatever upstream supplies verbatim.=20 >=20 > What then is the benefit? If what is installed is the same from > package manager or binpkg. Also your redistributing another's package > in binary format which may not be legally allowed. The difference is that how the package manager/ebuild installs the package may be better suited to the environment than what upstream expects (such as upstreams that install through a .run file) >> This includes things like any wrappers, desktop files or symlinks >> created by the ebuild, or other such downstream-isms. >=20 > If it was made via package manager. If it was made via quickpkg, it > maybe different than if made by package manager. Using quickpkg can create different binaries depending on your options, but otherwise it should package any installed files as recorded by the package manager - provided you use inclusive options, there should be no appreciable difference as far as I'm aware. --=20 Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26 --nK2werE6p7TWPBGxqdGa65gUuIi4s4aVg-- --HjdlVPa9QddFEWRXlACvtqmCVDF1BlvAv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJGBAEBCAAwFiEEkOOCivPPbnU/QAv/9azmicmnVzwFAlmKYDgSHHdyYWV0aEBn ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJEPWs5onJp1c8gvcP/1EoZh/Dfz4QgOTGJ3RvCzPTjY0O+aBP B+6FZCAIBfz0qXxb4t1ribz2eKBi1wQqHmIJ2Ic9CWOK7VgwF7dA1ayMU8K8XArs 5U9cxtjN9WCtJz/glbPZ9BgRJgyIa7dqNJZSbRucMkFewyJVAcnkDCfi1NgLAA2k LOIAMpy8P5IJAS34R9hbCVBBpW8CsFVB6llqdlNg+biODj9icPKFLeYIkCdKSRqs kNPeQhEmewRGe0TK7fe3HOJ1/GRLooH8WWKaGmbNrGGj9+TVwUnf55/2Jl+Evo5Y n+ddr2T3TQSU41VgDxPfKViKMPBg1G8DftFlKFYhTH+Z+oE2kFgYN8Vhq2szCNjR leVzN/+g9Qwji0U7WqdOgrGAZF2jN1z53W0I4TqDKBbgKYNWQZo6bi0a8SLHcxd/ xRIJl3FJij7a6rn/EJnfpc9l4Aw1pfgYQljQPMU8crrxTDpbUPuLHwB9pdu6T92u GLRKRchkfxWmg+UzpCkseMRBIdEpX5NLQ5NeuWPsHEtZxS/RL/DwVUzTcOAdlNVu wAgXIzZyDE+kaQq/DxXDBghVkhV1iTXoaz0ebcs/ISueBch40ip9CRp4rCYXAlqC 3e09pLG5DKpRMN8ahaZ8fdh5rb38RDgRW2WrQ1EWut1j288j0jRMRNGj7L5gLj9L FkuDNF8UPaG8 =LT9i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HjdlVPa9QddFEWRXlACvtqmCVDF1BlvAv--