[Slackbuilds-users] website direction requests
alan at lizella.net
Mon Jul 3 02:34:26 UTC 2006
Robby Workman wrote:
>> A drop-down that defaults to 11.0 might not be bad, there's no
>> real reason to flat-out reject scripts for 10.2, they just need
>> to be marked as such. Also, scripts could rely on -current (or future
>> versions) post-11.0.
> I think that introduces an unnecessary management headache for us; as it
> stands, everything is geared toward 11.0 and forward, with an FAQ entry
> providing instructions for use on older versions of Slackware.
I'm with Robby on this one. There's only so much hand-holding that can
be reasonably done, and even if it can be reasonably done, should it be
done at all? In my mind, anyone capable of using a SlackBuild script is
probably capable of understanding one well enough to mod it to get it to
work with older (or newer) releases, especially with our FAQ entry.
> The assumption should be that all scripts work on the most
> recent version of Slackware, and if the assumption is false, then a bug
> report should be made.
If this is the way we want it to work, we should make that a FAQ entry.
>>> ...will we need to generate the tar.gz archive manually?
>> The back-end of the admin bit should be able to handle this,
>> creating/updating the .tar.gz's when a script is approved or
> Okay, that's sounds reasonable to me - in other words, as part of the
> approval process, the admin should also create a tar.gz of the
> directory, right? Where will that file be stored, though - in the same
> directory, or in a separate directory somewhere?
I'm thinking just below that directory. In other words.
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/attachments/20060702/497f23b4/attachment.bin
More information about the Slackbuilds-users