[Slackbuilds-users] "Required" package listing in .info ?
koolniczka at gmail.com
Mon Oct 18 23:11:26 UTC 2010
Just to put a couple of things right, see inline:
King Beowulf - Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:28:06 -0700 :
> I'd be perfectly happy if the readme and info files listed the compile
> order for dependencies (e. g. Inkscape) so that I have a heads up for
> planning the build (this is sometimes "hinted" at by the list order).
> A machine readable fomat for SBo may be a lot a work for not much
> gain. I for one base part of my software choice decisions of the
.info files are perfectly "machine readable" in my eyes, you can
source/eval the values in them for use in shell scripts. I'm not talking
XML or whatnot. Just to add one other variable to the existing ones.
> complexity of the dependencies with a preference for most of the
> dependencies being already present in Slackware. I also don't load up
> a lot of software 'just for fun' since I have work to do and only so
> much time. Thus, I don't upgrade unless there is a compelling reason.
> There are projects that assist in dependency tracking for slackware,
> such as slapt-get/gslapt via 'slack-required'
> There are numerous GNU/Linux distros that provide dependency tracking.
> I prefer Slackware, and SBo, with its current simplicity.
> And, after all, there is nothing to stop you from building a project
> to track dependencies. Just don't expect a lot of sympathy if you want
I certainly would not want SBo to turn into a dependency tracking
project. I simply propose to capitalize on the work that someone has
already invested into building a package ( and shares it with others ) a
bit more by providing the info that is already there anyway (in the
README usually) in an easily reusable format (shell array).
> someone else to do the work for you.
> Just my 2 cents.
> On 10/17/10, John Doe <koolniczka at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I am (probably not alone ;-) ) benefiting from the quite stable quality
>> of the packages produced from the SBo scripts. Taken this measure of
>> reliability we've all learned to know and love I even produced (maybe
>> I'm not alone here either) some layer of automation based on the scripts
>> ("one touch build", ftp + wget + build).
>> Now, all the above said, let me step on the thin ice (and please note
>> beforehand that I am a long term Slack user and I'm aware of the general
>> opinion on the automated dependency resolution and package management).
>> I would like to check the opinion of the list members & SBo's core crew
>> on the inclusion of machine readable information about packages required
>> to build a given packages. This information is customarily provided in
>> the README description (which is widely appreciated, I believe ;-) ) so
>> it seems only logical to have it included in the PACKAGE.info file as well.
>> I would propose to amend the guideline governing the format of .info
>> files (as made available on SBo http://slackbuilds.org/guidelines ) with
>> something like:
>> REQUIRES=("package1" "package2" ... "packageX")
>> where package[1..X] is defined as
>> 1.) either the name of the package as provided by SBo if such package
>> is available
>> 2.) or the package name as provided by the source distributor if there
>> is no SBo build for it
>> Packages provided by stock Slack issue should not be listed here (as
>> they are usually not mentioned in the README either ).
>> This format will readily enable it's inclusion into "sh" based tools by
>> source or eval of the .info file (as is case at the moment)
>> My $0.02
>> Take care
>> SlackBuilds-users mailing list
>> SlackBuilds-users at slackbuilds.org
>> Archives - http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/
>> FAQ - http://slackbuilds.org/faq/
More information about the SlackBuilds-users