[Slackbuilds-users] Updates - 20070822

alkos333 me at alkos333.net
Thu Sep 27 19:51:35 UTC 2007

On 9/27/07, Heinz Wiesinger <HMWiesinger at gmx.at> wrote:
> >I don't know like this package - it doesn't comply with Slackware
> packaging,
> >so I would go with option 1.
> Now I don't see your point. Slackware itself has some packages, which are
> just
> repackaged binaries. Think of Mozilla-Firefox or Thunderbird. So I don't
> see
> why it should be removed just because of the fact, it's repackaged.

I was referring to the fact that the binary searches /usr/local/share/qemu
for needed files ,etc.

>On 9/27/07, Alan Hicks < alan at lizella.net> wrote:
> >>Robby Workman wrote:
> >>> I am very much against this binary patching. Symlinking would be much
> >>> cleaner.
> >>>
> >>> That being the case, would it be better to do one of these:
> >>> 1. Remove the qemu binary repackage script from our repo, since it
> >>>can't be made to work properly *and* keep everything out of the
> >>>/usr/local hierarchy, OR
> >>>2. Leave the qemu binary distributed in /usr/local as it's packaged
> >>>originally and add/rearrange only as needed for the docs and such
> >>>to be compliant with Slackware packaging
> >>> 3. Leave it as is and hope for the best
> >>4. Leave it as is and make note of the problem with both solutions in
> >>the README for the user to consider.Never, ever, out think the user.
> >>When the solution is this easy, and it's noted clear in the README file,
> >>than a user has no right to complain or think a "package" as it were is
> >>broken.Period.
> I know this is somehow against SB.o's policy, but what about patching the
> sources? As I see it, from all the other posts about this, the qemu-bin
> package is only required, because of the source being not able to be
> compiled
> with gcc-4.1. But there are lots of other distributions out there using
> this
> version of gcc, and they also provide qemu compiled from source. So there
> must be at least some patched available in the internet to make qemu
> compile
> with gcc-4.1.
> And to the matter of 'comply'. If I remember correctly, there are also
> some
> packages in Slackware, which use gcc4 patches.

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal.

> Slackbuilds-users mailing list
> Slackbuilds-users at slackbuilds.org
> http://lists.slackbuilds.org/mailman/listinfo/slackbuilds-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/attachments/20070927/245b0447/attachment-0002.html 

More information about the Slackbuilds-users mailing list