[Slackbuilds-users] What about slack-{required, suggests} files?

B Watson yalhcru at gmail.com
Sat Mar 10 19:23:20 UTC 2018

On 3/10/18, David Spencer <baildon.research at googlemail.com> wrote:

> slack-required in the SBo repository is pointless, we already have
> REQUIRES= in the .info file. When your preferred build tool builds the
> package, it can create and package the slack-required file, and/or
> create a .dep file, and/or PACKAGE REQUIRED line in a .meta file.

Also, tools that use slack-required are probably going to get confused
by the fact that our REQUIRES doesn't list core Slackware packages,
only SBo ones.

> slack-conflicts is a rare case. At the moment we add some advice in
> README and we add %README% to REQUIRES=. I would be personally quite
> happy to kill %README% forever, by putting a new CONFLICTS= line in
> the .info file, which would be more elegant than having a separate
> slack-conflicts file. But see below :)

Same deal with this, it would have to be able to list core Slack packages.
Example would be texlive for 14.2 (conflicts with tetex).

The idea about separate variables for build-time vs. runtime deps is
almost appealing to me. If "foo" is a build dep that can be removed
afterward, and "bar" and "baz" are runtime deps:

REQUIRES="foo bar baz"

...meaning there's some redundancy (foo is listed in both places), but
it'd be backwards compatible with existing tools and workflows. To start
out with, some kind SBo admin would write a script that adds a BUILDREQ=""
line to every .info file, and maintainers could fill them in piecemeal.

More information about the SlackBuilds-users mailing list