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

[lumin+slackbuilds at etherlight.link]

 > So, you're not doing it at same time? then WTF are
 > we even having this discussion, no need to rename
 > anything if its the only version on the system.

         This bikeshed- um, uh... discussion, thread,
   is about naming package scripts in the database of
   SlackBuilds.org, and not the names of the binaries
   themselves; it has nothing to do with installing
   multiple versions at the same time.  It's more
   about discoverability of packages on SBo.

                        * * *

         I have a slight preference to binary scripts
   ending with -bin, including ones without source
   available, but I don't really care that much, as
   long as it is stated in the package description,
   or at least, in the README (Yes, some of us do
   read those).

         Of course, I don't think any of this is
   worth doing mass-renaming or enforcing policy,
   especially not in the middle of a release cycle.
   Any changes and renames can be done at the next
   Slackware release freeze.  But I say just leave
   all of this as a recommendation, and keep the
   agency with the individual maintainers.

                        * * *

         Back to the original topic of the thread's
   OP; whether we should have a SlackBuild template
   for binary repacks.  I vote no.  For two reasons:

         First, what repacks?  A repack from .deb?
   from .rpm? from some .tar.gz built for Ubuntu?
   Some statically linked loose Golang binaries?
   There's no end to what a binary repack means.

         Contrast that to a cmake or autotools source
   program, in which it is obvious what steps need to
   be taken, generally, to build it.  For cmake and
   autotools, we do provide templates.

         Second, I don't think we should encourage
   binary repacks.  They should be, in my opinion, a
   last-resort, when the software is very resource
   intensive to build, or only exists in binary form.
   I already see too many packages existing as binary
   repacks only, too often just because it is easier
   than building them from source.  I don't think I
   like that, I view it as a degradation of SBo's
   packaging quality.

   I still appreciate all of y'all's work, thank you.


Best regards :)
Lumin Etherlight