[Slackbuilds-users] .info Feature Requests

[Klaatu]

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:21:25 AM King Beowulf wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 10:04 PM, Chris Abela wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Robby Workman <rworkman at slackbuilds.org> 
wrote:
> >> Off is the general direction in which you can fuck.
> >> 
> >> ---snip---
> >> That is all.
> > 
> > While I think that we could have done without the decorative nature of
> > the language contained in the mail above, I also would not like to see
> > the info file burdened with information of dubious importance.
> > Consider the originally requested LICENSE field. How shall we decide
> > what abides to what and under which definition and by which authority.
> > Writing SlackBuilds is fun because it is not very different from what
> > you would have wanted to to write for your own local system. Therefore
> > the process provides an efficient method on how users may contribute
> > to the "Slackware Experience" without having to go too much out of
> > their way. Let's keep it this way; fun.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> 
> I can understand the crankiness (my bathroom remodel is taking ages)
> even though I don't quite agree with it: this list is after all for a
> discussion of SBo topics. If the admins don't agree  with a request a
> simple "NO" will suffice.
> 
> That said, I see no reason to add licensing complexity to SBo.  Lets
> keep it simple and fun.
> 
> -Ed
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

I do agree with RW here. SlackBuilds feels pretty feature-complete to me and 
sometimes it's better to proclaim that That Which Is Not Broken Shall Not Be 
Fixed.

I didn't always feel that way....  [cue flashback]

This past summer we all discussed adding the REQUIRES field to .info, and I 
myself chimed in, saying that I could follow pre-determined conventions for 
dependency listings. Turns out, I've come to regret that a little, as I find 
it belabouring to cat both the .info and README files just to figure out what 
a pkg needs in order to get installed.

I am not all that fond of change in my OS and related toolset. And SBo has 
become a part of the core OS in my eyes. I'd be happy if we didn't hack on it 
and complicate it.

- klaatu