Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:15:25 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: Weldon Goree <weldon@...gurwallah.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Packaging: Slackware On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:04:10PM +0700, James B wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:48:34 -0400 > Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > > > > Knowing a little bit more about the goal of the slackbuild (and what > > exactly a "slackbuild" is) might help me make a better recommendation > > and assess whether extending the life of the 1.0.x branch is > > worthwhile for what you're doing. > > "Slackbuild" is a build recipe, just like RPM spec file or Arch PKGBUILD. > > There is a website called slackbuilds.org which collects thirdparty > slackbuilds (ie build recipes that are not part of official > Slackware repository) for others to use. Slackbuilds.org tend to > group slackbuilds following Slackware official releases (there is a > group of slackbuilds targetted for Slackware 13, Slack 14, Slack > 14.1, etc etc). > > I'm not speaking on behalf of Weldon but I guess this would be where > the musl slackbuild will end up. Yes. I'm still not clear though on whether the intent is to provide an environment for musl-[dynamic-]linked programs running on Slackware, or more for a development environment using the musl-gcc wrapper. This might affect the stability requirements. Of course if it's just a development environment using the wrapper, there may not be a lot of point in packaging that since you already need a compiler to use it, and with a compiler you can build musl (whichever version you want) in a matter of seconds on a modern workstation. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.