On Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:21:25 AM King Beowulf wrote: > On 11/14/2012 10:04 PM, Chris Abela wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Robby Workman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Off is the general direction in which you can fuck. > >> > >> ---snip--- > >> That is all. > > > > While I think that we could have done without the decorative nature of > > the language contained in the mail above, I also would not like to see > > the info file burdened with information of dubious importance. > > Consider the originally requested LICENSE field. How shall we decide > > what abides to what and under which definition and by which authority. > > Writing SlackBuilds is fun because it is not very different from what > > you would have wanted to to write for your own local system. Therefore > > the process provides an efficient method on how users may contribute > > to the "Slackware Experience" without having to go too much out of > > their way. Let's keep it this way; fun. > > _______________________________________________ > > SlackBuilds-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.slackbuilds.org/mailman/listinfo/slackbuilds-users > > Archives - http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/ > > FAQ - http://slackbuilds.org/faq/ > > I can understand the crankiness (my bathroom remodel is taking ages) > even though I don't quite agree with it: this list is after all for a > discussion of SBo topics. If the admins don't agree with a request a > simple "NO" will suffice. > > That said, I see no reason to add licensing complexity to SBo. Lets > keep it simple and fun. > > -Ed > > _______________________________________________ > SlackBuilds-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.slackbuilds.org/mailman/listinfo/slackbuilds-users > Archives - http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/ > FAQ - http://slackbuilds.org/faq/
I do agree with RW here. SlackBuilds feels pretty feature-complete to me and sometimes it's better to proclaim that That Which Is Not Broken Shall Not Be Fixed. I didn't always feel that way.... [cue flashback] This past summer we all discussed adding the REQUIRES field to .info, and I myself chimed in, saying that I could follow pre-determined conventions for dependency listings. Turns out, I've come to regret that a little, as I find it belabouring to cat both the .info and README files just to figure out what a pkg needs in order to get installed. I am not all that fond of change in my OS and related toolset. And SBo has become a part of the core OS in my eyes. I'd be happy if we didn't hack on it and complicate it. - klaatu _______________________________________________ SlackBuilds-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slackbuilds.org/mailman/listinfo/slackbuilds-users Archives - http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/ FAQ - http://slackbuilds.org/faq/
