[Slackbuilds-users] Updates - 20070822

[Heinz Wiesinger]

>I don't know like this package - it doesn't comply with Slackware packaging, 
>so I would go with option 1.

Now I don't see your point. Slackware itself has some packages, which are just
repackaged binaries. Think of Mozilla-Firefox or Thunderbird. So I don't see 
why it should be removed just because of the fact, it's repackaged.

>On 9/27/07, Alan Hicks < alan at lizella.net> wrote:
>>Robby Workman wrote:
>>> I am very much against this binary patching. Symlinking would be much 
>>> cleaner.
>>>
>>> That being the case, would it be better to do one of these:
>>> 1. Remove the qemu binary repackage script from our repo, since it
>>>    can't be made to work properly *and* keep everything out of the 
>>>    /usr/local hierarchy, OR
>>>2. Leave the qemu binary distributed in /usr/local as it's packaged
>>>    originally and add/rearrange only as needed for the docs and such
>>>    to be compliant with Slackware packaging 
>>> 3. Leave it as is and hope for the best

>>4. Leave it as is and make note of the problem with both solutions in
>>the README for the user to consider.  Never, ever, out think the user.
>>When the solution is this easy, and it's noted clear in the README file, 
>>than a user has no right to complain or think a "package" as it were is
>>broken.  Period.

I know this is somehow against SB.o's policy, but what about patching the 
sources? As I see it, from all the other posts about this, the qemu-bin 
package is only required, because of the source being not able to be compiled 
with gcc-4.1. But there are lots of other distributions out there using this 
version of gcc, and they also provide qemu compiled from source. So there 
must be at least some patched available in the internet to make qemu compile 
with gcc-4.1.
And to the matter of 'comply'. If I remember correctly, there are also some
packages in Slackware, which use gcc4 patches.