[Slackbuilds-users] nvidia-driver.info missing 64bit file info

Robby Workman rworkman at slackbuilds.org
Wed Jul 17 04:28:09 UTC 2013

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:23:43 +1000
Christoph Willing <c.willing at uq.edu.au> wrote:

> On 16/07/2013, at 4:57 PM, King Beowulf <kingbeowulf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, the question I have, as a script maintainer, what will be the
> > policy going forward?  This is a bit of a chicken/egg problem as
> > well: do we fix SBo to work with how sbopkg does things, or does
> > sbopkg change to accommodate SBo?
> > 
> > Perhaps an idea is, instead of increasing the complexity/redundancy
> > of the .info file, we fix the sbopkg to correctly deal with the
> > 32/64 downloads (re: Greg's examples; you only get ONE source file
> > block - pick one).  For cases like nvidia-*, we separate out the
> > utilities into a separate arch agnostic package, with the
> > nvidia-driver package just for the 2 arch downloads.
> > 
> > Simplicity == Ruggedness == Stability
> > 
> > Personally, I volunteer to assist SBo, and don't really give a fig
> > about sbopkg (popular though it is).
> I don't use sbopkg but have my own build system wrapping SBo's. If
> building for x86_64, it uses the DOWNLOAD_x86_64 field if its not
> empty, otherwise uses whatever is in the DOWNLOAD field. 32bit builds
> use just the DOWNLOAD field. Isn't that the way its supposed to work
> i.e. DOWNLOAD_x86_64 only contains something if something x86_64
> specific is needed, otherwise the ordinary DOWNLOAD field contains
> whatever is needed?
> I'm not sure what the use case would be to download both.

I think Heinz's reply should clarify any misunderstanding I caused
here :-)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/attachments/20130716/285bb370/attachment.asc>

More information about the SlackBuilds-users mailing list