[Slackbuilds-users] [RFC] a binary repack SlackBuild template.

[B. Watson]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2025, Noel Butler wrote:

>       The -bin suffix is proposed because of things like "libreoffice"
>       and "LibreOffice", which both exist in our repo. One is a build from
>       source, the other is a repackaged binary. Calling them "libreoffice"
>       and "libreoffice-bin" would make a *lot* more sense.
> 
>  
> rubbish, you'll do little more than create confusion - I've seen it before.

You're saying that naming the packages "libreoffice" and
"libreoffice-bin" will be *more* confusing than naming them
"libreoffice" and "LibreOffice"? I can't see how that would be the
case. Think it through.

>       Why do both exist? Because it literally takes all day to compile
>       libreoffice on some systems. Someone thought it would be a good idea
>       to offer users the choice to use the repackaged binary, so they could
>       just get on with using libreoffice when needed instead of waiting
>       all day.
> 
>  
> So? installing 2 versions of anything is fraught with risks and incredibly rare. Compiling by source knowing you want to also install a packaged version is pretty common in past 30
> years to install the source version into  /opt

Red herring. Nobody's talking about actually installing libreoffice
and libreoffice-bin (or any whatever and whatever-bin) at the same
time.

Also, it's normally the other way around on SBo: the built from source
version goes in /usr and the prepackaged binary often (not always)
goes in /opt.