See responses inline:

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Danny Rosen <drosen(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

* One of the key value propositions of a buildpack is the lightweight
process to fork and customize a buildpack.
*The inclusion of binaries makes buildpack customization a much heavier
process and less end user friendly in a number of ways.*
-- I'm not sure I agree with this point and would like to understand your
reasoning.

I may be missing something but it was my understanding that buildpacks with
binaries included must (unless checking all binaries into git) be added as
admin buildpacks which non admin users of CF cannot do. Therefore, if I am
a simple user of cloud foundry I cannot customize a buldpack for my one off
need without involving an administrator to upload and manage the one off
buildpack. If binary dependencies were instead managed in a way like
Daniel proposes the process would simply be to fork the buildpack and
specifying that git repo when pushing. Completely self service without
admin intervention. Making it a lighter weight process.

* For some of my customers the binary inclusion policies is too restrictive.

-- It's hard for me to understand this point as I do not know your
customers' requirements. Would you mind providing details so we can better
understand their needs?

I've attempted to express that need previously here:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/compile-extensions/issues/7 I don't view
this as a major issue but I think it could be something to consider if
buildpacks binary management is being reconsidered.

Hope those additional details help

Mike