Current binary package naming question

fjeldse · n00b Joined: 04 May 2017 Posts: 4

With the change in binary packages happening, what's going to happen with packages like `rust-bin` and `libreoffice-bin`? I'd like to make sure that I understand what changes (if any) I'll need to do in order to have a seamless upgrade in the future.

NeddySeagoon · Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 11:07 am Post subject:

fjeldse,

The use of the binary packages in that news item is entirely optional.
They will not have -bin name extensions and those packages will continue as before.

To use the official binary package repo, you need to set up portage to use it.
In other words, using the new binary repo is an extra option, its not in place of anything you do now.

Trying it is free as long as you use the --pretend option to emerge.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.

fjeldse · n00b Joined: 04 May 2017 Posts: 4

Thanks for the information. Having the option of more binaries if I want to use them is great! I might try using them on my really old Asus netbook which really struggles to compile some system tools.

Are `-bin` packages going to become less common in the future, or do you anticipate them continuing to have separate functions as they do now where they are mostly for large packages? Will there be overlap between the two?

NeddySeagoon · Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2023 11:01 am Post subject:

fjeldse,

I don't think anyone is planning that far ahead yet.

The more ready made binaries you want to use, the more yours system is constrained to be configured to match the binary build system.
Binary distros don't tell you that. It's take it or leave it the (one) way it is.

Gentoo allows you to configure your system as before and use binaries on an 'opportunity' basis.
If they match, great. If not, you can either build your own, or change your configuration to better match the available binaries.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.

mrbassie · l33t Joined: 31 May 2013 Posts: 789 Location: over here

Given that distcc is a thing, it would be efficient for those in the userbase who leverage that function to be able to contribute binaries. Conceivably there could versions of every ebuild in the tree (or let's say latest stable only) compiled with every possible combination of use flags, respecting each users package.use, package.keywords and whatnot.

How might sufficient trust be established in such a scenario?
_________________
Bus conductors learned to code.

grknight · Retired Dev Joined: 20 Feb 2015 Posts: 1695

Do consider that to use the newly announced binary downloads that USE flags cannot be modified for a package or else the package will be compiled anyway. (At least to install safely.)

Having -bin options that will never compile on large packages can still make sense. Some packages are binary only and do not have -bin in the name. This simply exists for those that can compile but also resource intensive with a different option.

The Main Man · Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:59 pm Post subject:

mrbassie · l33t Joined: 31 May 2013 Posts: 789 Location: over here

NeddySeagoon · Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2023 8:26 pm Post subject:

The Main Man,

It's on the https://www.gentoo.org front page.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.

miket · Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2023 10:20 pm Post subject:

I've been running a binary host for at least 10 years now, so the concept of binary packages is hardly new to me. Sure, I see no harm in not having the -bin indicator on packages and see it as a win if a pre-built binary matches with its USE flags plus dependencies matches what I already have.

I do want to be sure that certain packages retain the -bin indication, however. My poster child for this is rust-bin. If perchance one of my USE-flag settings would one day no longer match those available in the rust-bin builds and thus trigger a rebuild of plain rust, I want that fact to show up as an error during emerge's dependency resolution.

I really hope we don't lose those -bin indications from such packages.

NeddySeagoon · Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:31 am Post subject:

miket.

That's the difference between --getpackage and --getpackageonly (-g and -G).

The former says to use binaries if possible. The latter is use binaries or fail.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.

miket · Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 4:06 pm Post subject:

sublogic · Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:54 pm Post subject:

sam_ · Developer Joined: 14 Aug 2020 Posts: 1697

libreoffice-bin is a Gentoo-built binary and a pain to keep doing, so that might at some point (maybe, not committing to it) go away and then we'd expect people to use libreoffice from the binhost if they want a binary.

firefox-bin, rust-bin (with the exception of sparc where I build it) are upstream-built binaries and are very unlikely indeed to go away - both because they're useful in terms of testing stuff, confirming bugs, etc, but also because they're easy to maintain. A Gentoo-built binary would also possibly function differently.

Also, right now, Portage doesn't support conditional getbinpkg override like that, see bug 463964.

miket · Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2024 5:27 am Post subject:

mkyral · Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2024 7:19 am Post subject:

Just a note: I had to mask dev-lang/rust because portage preferred it over dev-lang/rust-bin when I run emerge with "--with-bdeps=y"

sam_ · Developer Joined: 14 Aug 2020 Posts: 1697