[Slackbuilds-users] [FYI]SlackBuild for python modules should be architecture dependent

Robby Workman rworkman at slackbuilds.org
Fri May 29 01:03:31 UTC 2009

On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:34:54 -0400
Dragon Wisard <dragonwisard at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think what Eric was saying is that the Slackbuild is architecture
> independent but the package generated by it is architecture
> dependent. That seems to be enough to satisfy him.
> Personally, I see no reason why the package should *need* to be
> architecture dependent. We're restricting it based on a directory
> structure convention. It would be relatively easy to just use
> symlinks to have the modules show up in both places if appropriate. I
> see no reason to have two separate packages when the contents are
> identical and the only difference is where they get installed. It's a
> waste of space and adds unnecessary complexity to administration.

Maybe, but I don't like the symlink idea at all.  We can't just symlink
the entire /usr/lib (or /usr/lib64) directory, so we'd have to symlink
each additional file in there, and along the way, check for existing
files/dirs on the filesystem with the same names so that we don't wipe
them, and if they exist already, then what?  Fail during installation?

IMHO, if a package uses */lib64 then it's an ARCH=x86_64 package.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/attachments/20090528/ed104e0b/attachment.asc>

More information about the SlackBuilds-users mailing list