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 F05ED1396D0 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C054CE0E21; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1.obsidian-studios.com (mail.obsidian-studios.com [173.230.135.215]) (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 5B424E0E08 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 2966 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2017 00:43:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO assp1.obsidian-studios.com) (wlt-ml@::ffff:127.0.0.1) by ::ffff:127.0.0.1 with ESMTPA; 9 Aug 2017 00:43:38 -0000 X-Assp-Version: 2.5.5(17073) on assp1.obsidian-studios.com X-Assp-ID: assp1.obsidian-studios.com m1-39418-05751 X-Assp-Session: 38F5C4E0280 (mail 1) X-Assp-Envelope-From: wlt-ml@o-sinc.com X-Assp-Intended-For: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Assp-Server-TLS: yes Received: from unknown ([2601:344:4100:1b0f:f2d5:bfff:feac:9077] helo=localhost) by assp1.obsidian-studios.com with SMTPSA(TLSv1_2 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) (2.5.5); 8 Aug 2017 20:43:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 20:43:32 -0400 From: "William L. Thomson Jr." To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <51802e5c-2dc2-3f08-e570-f6572a10dd33@gentoo.org> References: <51802e5c-2dc2-3f08-e570-f6572a10dd33@gentoo.org> Organization: Obsidian-Studios, Inc. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/IAvY5XP40.A+FE5ORpVViUY"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: cf42647a-0418-4178-9e3f-c8c6e0426522 X-Archives-Hash: e0750401552c93af0ea316abec28c194 --Sig_/IAvY5XP40.A+FE5ORpVViUY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:29:40 +1000 "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > 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 > >=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 >=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 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. > This includes things like any wrappers, desktop files or symlinks > created by the ebuild, or other such downstream-isms. If it was made via package manager. If it was made via quickpkg, it maybe different than if made by package manager. --=20 William L. Thomson Jr. --Sig_/IAvY5XP40.A+FE5ORpVViUY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQTEeldqZjmVut8bVHJNcbKkg6ozUAUCWYpatQAKCRBNcbKkg6oz UA9JAKCM7aT0yeOoAGe/38wclREifIatlACeIrBr+iZgaYUdh6x1PsiMW7krFK8= =zcvL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/IAvY5XP40.A+FE5ORpVViUY--