[Slackbuilds-users] iPerf3 build script for testing
andreas.guldstrand at gmail.com
Sun Aug 28 09:04:27 UTC 2016
If the other package also ships a binary with the same name, I'd say
you should rename your binary to iperf3 in your SlackBuild script, so
it doesn't conflict. And mention this in the README.
On 28 August 2016 at 08:22, Sebastian Arcus <s.arcus at open-t.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/08/16 06:57, Fernando Lopez wrote:
>> had no issues making the package... had no issues running iperf 3.1.3 on
>> my slack current x64.
> Thank you Fernando. I have one more problem with this package. The
> developers keep on referring to the software on their project page as iPerf3
> (but in places just iPerf) - to differentiate it from the original
> iPerf/iPerf2. However, the source code files and directories just use iPerf
> (or "iperf" - all lower case). Thus the source code archive contains a
> folder called iperf-x.y.z - not iperf3-x.y.z. Even the resulting binary is
> just called iperf. Originally I wanted to call the SBo package iPerf3 (with
> corresponding files - iperf3.SlackBuild etc.) - to clearly set it apart from
> the other iPerf. But given the above, I don't think it can be done.
> Could I have some thoughts on the above please? Should I leave the scripts
> as they are - only referring to the software as iPerf3 in the README file -
> and using "iperf" everywhere else? I don't even know why the developers
> didn't just use another name - after all, according to them, it shares no
> code whatsoever with the original iPerf, and it isn't backwards compatible.
> SlackBuilds-users mailing list
> SlackBuilds-users at slackbuilds.org
> Archives - https://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/
> FAQ - https://slackbuilds.org/faq/
More information about the SlackBuilds-users