| Summary: | sci-mathematics/gimps: compile from source | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | . <dev.rindeal+gentoo> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Paolo Pedroni <paolo.pedroni> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | proxy-maint, sci-mathematics |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
.
2016-09-05 10:43:51 UTC
Paolo, do you remember why this is? (In reply to Thomas Kahle from comment #1) > Paolo, do you remember why this is? Because the public sources are missing a small "proprietary" bit (I don't actually remember exactly what it is), that allows the client to be properly trusted by the server. So the answer is: You can only participate in the official gimps project with the official binaries. I'll close this as "CANTFIX". Thanks. mprime can work even if you don't become a member of the network. Eg. Arch linux provides both compiled and binary version. Fair enough, but how does arch inform their users? I imagine that 99% or more install this package because they want to join the gimps project. Arch is a little confusing with this, it even calls the packages mprime{,-bin}. Maybe we could leave this package alone and create a new one, source based and called mprime. That should make it clear what's what.
(In reply to Jan Chren (rindeal) from comment #6) > Arch is a little confusing with this, it even calls the packages > mprime{,-bin}. Maybe we could leave this package alone and create a new one, > source based and called mprime. That should make it clear what's what. It seems like one option, although it's a bit weird to have the same package twice with different names. Maybe a use-flag with apropriate description is better. Opinions? (In reply to Thomas Kahle from comment #7) > It seems like one option, although it's a bit weird to have the same package > twice with different names. Maybe a use-flag with apropriate description is > better. Opinions? Sorry, Tomka, you won't get an opinion from me ;) I only use the binaries for the official GIMPS project, I'm not interested in compilation from source for this package. Do whatever you please, as long as the pre-compiled binary remains. (In reply to Thomas Kahle from comment #7) > Maybe a use-flag with apropriate description is > better. Opinions? Impossible, the ebuid will have different KEYWORDS if built from source. (In reply to Jan Chren (rindeal) from comment #9) > (In reply to Thomas Kahle from comment #7) > > Maybe a use-flag with apropriate description is > > better. Opinions? > > Impossible, the ebuid will have different KEYWORDS if built from source. No, it is certainly possible. There could be a "bin" or "gimps" useflag on the mprime package which enables the binary blob. This useflag would then have to be masked on all arches for which there are no binary packages. Keywords have little to do with this. Anyway, I have little motivation or time to implement the source package. For me the default case to install this program is to join the gimps project. Is there any user out there who wants to use the source package and not just have it for "completeness"? (In reply to Jan Chren (rindeal) from comment #9) Why not send in a PR and we can take a look at it? 18 months have passed and nobody stepped up to provide an ebuild for this. Closing as WONTFIX. Besides the package depends a lot on optimized assembler for the x86 and amd64 architectures so there is next to no hope that it can be successfully compiled for other archs. |
