[Slackbuilds-users] REQUIRES="%README%"

Erik Hanson erik at slackbuilds.org
Mon Mar 3 21:34:14 UTC 2014

On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:45:07 +0700
Willy Sudiarto Raharjo <willysr at slackbuilds.org> wrote:

> > 
> > Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that the README should always
> > be read. I'm willing it bet it always is, for people building things
> > manually with ./name.SlackBuild. The target audience for %README% seems
> > to be users of scripts like sbopkg or sbo_tools, maybe the authors of
> > those tools could chime in?
> I believe it's still user's job to read the README and not blaming for the tools

Yes, the expectation, regardless of anything else, is that users will read
the README files.

> Tools such as sbopkg will ignore %README% while processing

No, it is not a flag to tell people to read the README file. Otherwise all
REQUIRES lines should have it. That's very silly. The entire point of it is
so tools can use it as a flag to stop auto-processing, signaling the user
to deal with special circumstances. Those circumstances are outlined in the
README file.

In any case, I am against a flag in the REQUIRES line telling people to
read the README file. Amidst all the conversation about adding a REQUIRES
line to the info file, we knew full well the point was to help automated
tools deal with dependencies. There needed to be a way to stop those tools
in certain cases and this is what we settled on. Perhaps it should have
been %MANUAL% or something, for clarity.

Any ideas that there are cases for listing deps along with %README% in the
REQUIRES line, please see my response above: Yes, the expectation ...

Erik Hanson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/attachments/20140303/96110728/attachment.asc>

More information about the SlackBuilds-users mailing list