[Slackbuilds-users] Use for a package repository?

Heinz Wiesinger pprkut at liwjatan.at
Thu Feb 19 23:34:50 UTC 2009

fullofdaylight at no-log.org wrote:
> Hello,
> This is slightly off-topic since it doesn't deal with SlackBuilds, but I'd
> like to know your opinion on a SBo package repository (read "third
> party").

Ok, so my opinion: just don't.


> - Given SBo is the top quality source for additional software under
> Slackware,

Agreed. So any other repository, and especially package repository would be 
not as "top". So why bother if there's something better....

> - given compilation can take a while (Battle for Wesnoth anyone?),
> would it be a good thing if someone creates a repository containing
> packages (properly) compiled from SBo SlackBuilds with default settings?

"properly" has a very loose definition. When is a package "properly" compiled? 
When it doesn't include unnecessary stuff? What exactly is "unnecessary"?
You see, some scripts have options to be chosen to extend it or cut it down 
(as you said elsewhere), but some don't. And you still can make them not use 
stuff by just not having the required deps installed.
For me, "properly" means "as I want it to be" combined with "it should work", 
which... doesn't always work out......but you hopefully get the point.

> Are there issues that would make it a bad idea? Or in the contrary would
> it be a useful, convenient way to get quality packages?

In the end I think this is about compiling vs. not compiling. Is this really 
an issue? It's not like we're gentoo....

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/attachments/20090220/3a418bda/attachment.sig>

More information about the SlackBuilds-users mailing list