[Slackbuilds-users] Shouldn't KeePass (mono apps in general) be ARCH=noarch?
ts at websafe.pl
Sat Oct 29 19:11:16 UTC 2016
On 10/29/2016 08:37 PM, B Watson wrote:
> On 10/29/16, Thomas Szteliga <ts at websafe.pl> wrote:
>> Now I'm thinking that KeePass itself should be noarch too...
>> Am I right? It's a pure mono application (binary).
> If there are no native (ELF) binaries, the only other thing to watch
> out for is LIBDIRSUFFIX. If it installs stuff in /usr/lib on 32-bit and
> /usr/lib64 on 64-bit, you'll want to get rid of that (/usr/share/$PRGNAM
> is probably better).
I think this /usr/share/$PRGNAM in this case is much better
than /usr/lib/$PRGNAM. I've seen this on Arch Linux.
Fedora ships KeePass with defined ARCH and in /usr/lib
(also the x86_64 pkg) but I see there's another thing,
the Slackware pkg is coming with KeePassLibC32.dll and KeePassLibC64.dll
and ShInstUtil.exe, which are probably
not needed (not found in fedora's rpm). I'll check this
before posting a noarch Slackbuild.
> The test is whether the same binary package runs correctly on either
> 32-bit or 64-bit.
> Example: a lot of Perl packages install only perl code, nothing native,
> but the install path is different (lib vs. lib64) so they can't use
All KeePass files (except icons) land in /usr/lib/KeePass/
on both - x86 and x86_64.
> ...and, you have just made me realize that the 'domination' build I just
> submitted should be noarch also (it's pure Java).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3719 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the SlackBuilds-users