Dave Verwer

Would a slightly more generic way to reveal this information be to allow target information to be inspected? There are so few packages that are binary only that this maybe...

Thanks for investigating this @samdeane! > (assuming that we're talking about just a "binary only" flag and not something that lets you inspect target info.) Yep! I never clarified but...

I mocked it up and played with the copy in the UI a bit. It's a bit wordy, covering three lines. This may be better: Might even be worth bolding...

I'm not sure about the orange exclamation mark by the way. This is important to know but it's not necessarily a red (or orange) flag.

> Am I right in thinking that the basic test for this is to check the package to see if it only contains `binaryTarget` targets? How about if it also...

> Looking at your Manifest struct, you currently don't seem to record the target type - so I guess that will need changing? Then the analysis stage will then need...

> Quick note from me: Is it worth running a check how many packages would actually have the flag? It feels like this can turn into quite a tricky thing...

> Perhaps a compromise is to just add `type` to `Manifest.Target` for now, but to still re-encode it and store it in the model as a JSON field. This sounds...

> Whichever you have the appetite for, it won't be on the Package entity. It will be on Version as it could change from version to version. We'll probably only...

> I'm happy to give that all a stab. Do you make piecemeal migrations when adding fields, or do you just brute-force rebuild the database since it's all generated anyway?...