# \[PITCH\] Support for binary dependencies **URL:** \ **Category:** Package Manager\ **Created:** [August 5, 2019, 7:33am UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/pitch-support-for-binary-dependencies/27620 "2019-08-05T07:33:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 90
**Author:** ![NeoNacho](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/swift/user_avatar/forums.swift.org/neonacho/32/1368_2.png) [@NeoNacho](https://forums.swift.org/u/NeoNacho)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 7:57pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/pitch-support-for-binary-dependencies/27620/90 "2019-09-18T19:57:06Z")
@rballard and me discussed the opt-in part of this proposal and came to the following observations: - It is true that strictly speaking there is no difference between binary and source dependencies in terms of trust, as some folks on this thread also commented. This makes a per binary packages opt-in during development time less important - The difference between having zero vs. any binary dependencies is still significant, for example it will be harder to port the package to a new platform if there are any binary dependencies. Because of this, it would make sense to offer package authors a way to opt-out of binary packages wholesale in order to not add a transitive dependency on one accidentally. It warrants further discussion to figure out whether this is better suited to manifest API or a separate configuration option. There might also be a case to be made to make developers opt-in to binary packages once instead. - Increasing the visibility of binary packages being used is still a worthwhile problem to solve, but it can be tackled as a workflow feature by tools built on top off libSwiftPM and doesn't have to be part of this proposal. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.swift.org/t/pitch-support-for-binary-dependencies/27620)._