[Slackbuilds-users] requirements in README files
j at dawnrazor.net
Tue Jul 10 17:44:58 UTC 2012
Thanks for clearing that up, I now see where you're coming from. And I
believe you're misunderstanding; please all me an attempt to clarify:
My request is related *strictly* to formatting, and goes absolutely no
further. So that if someone submits a slackbuild with the requirement
listed, for example, like this:
Depends on: x, y, and z
Then it gets corrected by the admin, who is already making
corrections, and would only need to change that line to:
This requires x, y, and z.
since that is currently the most popular format and so it makes sense
to adopt that as the format in question.
And, as mentioned, I would be very happy to take up this part of the work.
So, again: my concern is strictly limited to formatting, and only for
actual hard and fast requirements, not optionals. This represents a
minor formatting change *at worst*. And that, I believe, requires no
change to the testing currently done by admins.
Quoting Chess Griffin <chess at chessgriffin.com>:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012, at 11:31 AM, J wrote:
>> where you're dead wrong is the stuff about
>> testing. what in the world does all that have to do with anything? the
>> testing process wouldn't change one iota from where it currently stands.
> Right now, it's up each maintainer to list the dependencies in the
> README. Yes, there is some vetting of this information by the admins
> but essentially the burden remains with the maintainer. However, if the
> admins were to adopt an official SBo policy on dependency handling and
> naming convention in the README file, then it seems to me each
> submission would therefore need to be checked and tested against this
> policy, both for completeness and accuracy. And that would fall on the
> Chess Griffin
> 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