klaatu at straightedgelinux.com
Sun Mar 2 06:15:52 UTC 2014
On 03/02/2014 05:26 AM, David Spencer wrote:
> (1) If there are any optional dependencies mentioned in the README, use %README%
> (2) If there are some complicated dependencies that are explained in
> the README (for example, you *must* choose one of two alternative
> dependencies), then use %README%, but there is no need to use %README%
> if the optional dependencies are just optional in a normal sort of
> way, because everyone should read the README anyway.
> I tend to do (2), but I think I should probably be doing (1) instead.
> However, there are quite a lot of SlackBuilds that go beyond these two
> Sometimes there are no optional deps in the README, and it is being
> used to draw attention to other setup stuff in the README, for example
> groupadd and useradd commands. Ok, I can understand that
> 'requirements' can be interpreted wider than just 'more packages', but
> this isn't done consistently.
> Sometimes it's being used to draw attention to *reverse* dependencies
> listed in the README, which is really not necessary. :-(
I don't recall the exact nature of "%README% actually being declared
when it got started back in 2012 due to this message:
In my understanding, it notes that there is additional info required in
order to make good use of the build. Could be anything - optional
dependencies, alternative dependencies, special setup notes, special
VARIABLES that might be added before the build command...whatever.
I think the idea that a README file ought to be read was brought up in
that thread already, as well, but the REQUIRES line was still added to
.info, so I feel that using %README% as a more generic flag makes sense.
In other words, it's sort of a boolean, in my view: either this build
is safe for blissful, blind parsing of REQUIRES, and automatically
building - or else it is not.
If my interpretation of it is incorrect, I'm happy to re-consider my use
More information about the SlackBuilds-users