[Slackbuilds-users] Orphaned slackbuilds

Martin Lefebvre dadexter at sekurity.com
Fri Nov 2 10:10:34 UTC 2007

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:02:35AM +0100, Eric Hameleers wrote:
> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:02:35 +0100 (CET)
> From: Eric Hameleers <eha at sox.homeip.net>
> To: "SlackBuilds.org Users List" <slackbuilds-users at slackbuilds.org>
> Subject: Re: [Slackbuilds-users] Orphaned slackbuilds
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Robby Workman wrote:
> >Niki Kovacs wrote:
> >>Michael Wagner a écrit :
> >>>Michael Wagner wrote:
> >>>>Hey,
> >>>>
> >>>>as my spare time is reduced, I am looking for somebody else who takes
> >>>>care of the following build scripts:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>It seems as if I have to keep working on them. Not a big problem though.
> >>>
> >>A thought on updates. Slackware is not Gentoo. Say you make package
> >>foobar-1.0.3 available for Slackware on SBo. IMHO it's not a big deal if
> >>folks are still one version behind when foobar-1.0.4 comes out. I'd say
> >>a good time to check for available updates is when a new Slackware
> >>release (12.1?) comes out.
> >>
> >>Recently I've seen a guy using Gentoo, and he spent most of his time
> >>updating and recompiling things. You don't want to do that, do you?
> >
> >
> >That's quite a valid point, to be honest.
> >There's not much good reason to update a script when the *only*
> >change required is to the VERSION string.
> >When something else has to be changed for it to build a newer
> >version of the app, then YES - we definitely want an updated
> >script - otherwise, if it's just a simple VERSION change to
> >build a proper package, then why bother?
> >
> >I realize that there are users out there who will look at our
> >version numbers and then look at the version numbers at some
> >other places, and who will then conclude that since we're
> >"out of date" that they should go with the other guys, but the
> >way I see it, it's their loss.
> >
> >Just my two cents from a personal standpoint - not speaking for
> >the project team as a whole...
> >
> >-RW
> It sounds allright to me. What we can propose to authors of a SlackBuild 
> who want to be listed as 'maintainer' is that they email us if a new 
> VERSION of the software is out, they tested it and they determine that the 
> VERSION in the slackbuild script is the only thing that needs change.
> When we receive an email from the person listed as MAINTAINER stating that 
> the VERSION should be bumped, we can do that fairly quickly and more 
> important without building and testing the package ourselves.
> Eric
> -- 
> Eric Hameleers
> Email: alien at slackware.com
> Jabber: alien at jabber.xs4all.nl
> Gpg fingerprint: F2CE 1B92 EE1F 2C0C E97E  581E 5E56 AAAF A75C BDA0

What if, theoratically speaking, Slackbuilds were made so that if a new
version comes out, all the user who wants to have the latest and
greatest has to do is pass it like ARCH?

VERSION=1.0.4 ./prgnam.SlackBuild

most new versions will work that way, and if there is a problem, then
the maintainer can be emailed, and a new script can be uploaded.

IMO, that has the effect of being more adaptable, and at the same time,
allows users to have the newest version, but also have an older one if
someone prefers the way 1.0.2 worked over 1.0.3+

Martin Lefebvre <dadexter_at_nospam_sekurity_dot_com>
WWW: http://www.sekurity.com

"This is my Linux box. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My Linux box is my best friend. It is my life."

More information about the Slackbuilds-users mailing list