[Slackbuilds-users] "Required" package listing in .info ?

King Beowulf kingbeowulf at gmail.com
Mon Oct 18 05:28:06 UTC 2010

I'd be perfectly happy if the readme and info files listed the compile
order for dependencies (e. g. Inkscape) so that I have a heads up for
planning the build (this is sometimes "hinted" at by the list order).
A machine readable fomat for SBo may be a lot a work for not much
gain. I for one base part of my software choice decisions of the
complexity of the dependencies with a preference for most of the
dependencies being already present in Slackware. I also don't load up
a lot of software 'just for fun' since I have work to do and only so
much time. Thus, I don't upgrade unless there is a compelling reason.

There are projects that assist in dependency tracking for slackware,
such as slapt-get/gslapt via 'slack-required'

There are numerous GNU/Linux distros that provide dependency tracking.

I prefer Slackware, and SBo,  with its current simplicity.

And, after all, there is nothing to stop you from building a project
to track dependencies. Just don't expect a lot of sympathy if you want
someone else to do the work for you.

Just my 2 cents.


On 10/17/10, John Doe <koolniczka at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am (probably not alone ;-) ) benefiting from the quite stable quality
> of the packages produced from the SBo scripts. Taken  this measure of
> reliability we've all learned to know and love I even produced (maybe
> I'm not alone here either) some layer of automation based on the scripts
> ("one touch build", ftp + wget + build).
> Now, all the above said, let me step on the thin ice (and please note
> beforehand that I am a long term Slack user and I'm aware of the general
> opinion on the automated dependency resolution and package management).
> I would like to check the opinion of the list members & SBo's core crew
> on the inclusion of machine readable information about packages required
> to build a given packages. This information is customarily provided in
> the README description (which is widely appreciated, I believe ;-) ) so
> it seems only logical to have it included in the PACKAGE.info file as well.
> I would propose to amend the guideline governing the format of .info
> files (as made available on SBo http://slackbuilds.org/guidelines ) with
> something like:
> REQUIRES=("package1" "package2" ... "packageX")
> where package[1..X] is defined as
> 	1.) either the name of the package as provided by SBo if such package
> is available
> 	2.) or the package name as provided by the source distributor if there
> is no SBo build for it
> Packages provided by stock Slack issue should not be listed here (as
> they are usually not mentioned in the README either ).
> This format will readily enable it's inclusion into "sh" based tools by
> source or eval of the .info file (as is case at the moment)
> My $0.02
> Take care
> Koolniczka
> _______________________________________________
> SlackBuilds-users mailing list
> SlackBuilds-users at slackbuilds.org
> http://lists.slackbuilds.org/mailman/listinfo/slackbuilds-users
> Archives - http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/
> FAQ - http://slackbuilds.org/faq/

Sent from my mobile device

You! What PLANET is this!
	-- McCoy, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate 3134.0

More information about the SlackBuilds-users mailing list