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

Robby Workman rworkman at slackbuilds.org
Fri May 29 03:57:06 UTC 2009

On Thu, 28 May 2009 23:45:40 -0400
xgizzmo at slackbuilds.org wrote:

> On Thursday 28 May 2009 22:59:18 Dragon Wisard wrote:
> > I don't like the idea of defaulting to noarch if the package is
> > incompatible with x86_64. If we're going to have separate packages,
> > they should be clearly marked as such. Making one 'noarch' and one
> > 'x86_64' is inconsistent. It's either 'noarch' or it isn't.
> > 
> Then for 32 bit if it in not noarch then what its it? its not i386 or
> i486 or i585 or i686. I don't see this as a problem that needs
> solving. It is really no different than a package for slackware 11
> not working on slackware 12.2. The packages are Slackware version (64
> bit being a different version) dependant not arch dependant. If the
> package builder prefers to call the package something else then they
> can. Most of the python builds are noarch there is no arch dependant
> code in them so they ARE noarch. The problem is caused by a different
> version of Slackware that uses a different python path.

And of course, that's a valid counterpoint.  I guess we (the admins)
will discuss this elsewhere and work out something :-)

-------------- 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/fe2076b1/attachment.asc>

More information about the SlackBuilds-users mailing list