[Slackbuilds-users] Use for a package repository?
erik at slackbuilds.org
Fri Feb 20 18:19:15 UTC 2009
On Feb 20, 2009, at 3:09 PM, fullofdaylight at no-log.org wrote:
> I agree that if I am to create such a repository it has not to be
> affiliated with SBo (although I think SBo _has_ to be cited as the
> SlackBuilds' source), and that one has to be well-informed one can't give
> it the same level of trust.
We will not put our name behind this. It has come up in the past, we have
discussed it, and it will not happen.
> The rationale behind my idea is that it is convenient to have only one
> source for additional packages instead of cherry-picking between several
> ones. Additionally I don't trust other packages/SlackBuild sources
> (LinuxPackages, Slacky, any individual repository, etc) as much as I trust
These other repositories already exist. You can't take them away by making
an SBo repository. I don't think any of us admins would even want that. We
didn't set out to take away choice.
> While there are SlackBuilds that need customization before being compiled,
> there are numerous ones where simply executing the unmodified SlackBuild
> is fine, and where the result doesn't heavily depends on which other
> programs are already installed.
That's actually sort of the point, in an indirect way. People don't
necessarily run a stock 12.2 system (I sure as hell don't). While all we
can do is test against a full 12.2 install, the scripts can be used in
any number of situations. Packages, maybe not so much.
> If I have time maybe I'll try to set up something, and see if people are
> interested in the project or if they generally prefer to compile programs
While I don't doubt that some people would find a pre-compiled package
repository useful, I just don't want to be on the hook for support. And
that's basically why we have to draw a line.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the SlackBuilds-users