[Slackbuilds-users] nvidia-driver.info missing 64bit file info
rworkman at slackbuilds.org
Wed Jul 17 04:25:56 UTC 2013
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:26:01 +0200
Heinz Wiesinger <pprkut at liwjatan.at> wrote:
> On Monday 15 July 2013 12:56:58 Robby Workman wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:52:20 +0100
> > "Greg' Ar Tourter" <artourter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > All the recently released/updated nvidia*-driver.info file are
> > > missing the source files and associated md5sum for the 64bit
> > > version. There are indeed common to bot the 32 and 64 bit version
> > > but need to be specified for both. Currently sbopkg fails because
> > > it isn't downloading the tar.xz files on 64bit machines since
> > > only the .run file is specified.
> > Hrm, my fault, but I'm not convinced that sbopkg is DTRT.
> > I'm going to CC the sbopkg list to solicit feedback, but it's my
> > point of view that sbopkg should *always* pull the things specified
> > in $DOWNLOAD, and if on x86_64, pull the things specified in
> > $DOWNLOAD_x86_64. Unless my memory is failing me, that is how we
> > envisioned things working when we added the *_x86_64 variables to
> > the .info file.
> It's a little bit more complicated. The way it was meant: When
> DOWNLOAD_x86_64 is empty, use DOWNLOAD (indicating source is the same
> for both platforms), if filled (and not UNSUPPORTED/UNTESTED) use
> DOWNLOAD_x86_64 (different source per platform). And then there is
> also the rather rare case where DOWNLOAD could be
> UNSUPPORTED/UNTESTED (app works only on x86_64). This is also more or
> less how the website logic works when displaying download links to
> the sources.
Okay, that makes sense - thanks for the clarification. We should
probably document that somewhere public if we haven't already.
I should probably keep up better ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the SlackBuilds-users