[Slackbuilds-users] requirements in README files

[J]

Quoting Christoph Willing <c.willing at uq.edu.au>:

> On 11/07/2012, at 2:01 PM, J wrote:
> [snip]
>> 1. how does such a recommendation get communicated to slackbuild  
>> maintainers? admins out there, would you be willing to publish such  
>> a recommendation on slackbuilds.org? after all, if it weren't  
>> stated there, it wouldn't exactly be worth much.
>> 2. formatting - newline/tab/multiple-space delimited, any of these  
>> is easily parseable, so I would be happy with any of these options  
>> or anything else that is easily parsed. but I do think it makes  
>> sense to stick with the currently most popular format - otherwise  
>> we end up with even more different types of formatting than we  
>> already have.
>
> Hey J, in your first email which started this thread you said:
>
>> An ideal solution would be add this info in a file somewhere, for  
>> example into the .info file. But they would still need to be in the  
>> README, cause that just makes good sense. So it makes some sort of  
>> sense to just have them in the README.
>
> As you know by now, I fully support the general thrust of your  
> proposal. However I don't really follow the logic of how the ideal  
> place for this information goes from being the .info file to the  
> README file (especially exclusively, as seems to be suggested). I  
> think the ideal place is the .info file - exactly where you started  
> out.

Well, speaking strictly programmatically, something like this in the  
.info file is absolutely ideal:
PREREQS="thinga thingb thingc"

That is super easy to handle; bash can source it, and I can very  
trivially pull that info with perl. absolutely desirable.

But with the system we already have, where we're already defining the  
info somewhere else, it seems saner to me to just deal with it where  
it already is. I am not at all against the .info idea, or the  
slack-required idea for that matter, it just isn't my focus.

J