since we are talking about the INFO files again, I hope you guys will
reconsider your decision and allow for having variables within the
downloads links, e.g. for the sources version...
-p
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 11:47, Lockywolf
wrote:
>
> Hello, colleagues
>
> There have been repeated
On 11/28/23 7:03 AM, Willy Sudiarto Raharjo wrote:
This is my personal opinion and does not reflect other admins:
My take on aarch64 is NO official support in SBo, but we can take
"ELSE IF" in the SlackBuild to pass needed flags to build if the
maintainer is using aarch and have done some
There have been repeated discussions about two features that the current
.info file format is missing:
1. aarch64 architecture. If in the past slarm64 was still an unofficial
port, with -current it is official, and quite widely available, given
the number of RPi machines available.
2.
>> My first thought was DOWNLOAD_X86 is not needed because the same end result
>> can be
>> achieved with DOWNLOAD, DOWNLOAD_X86_64, and DOWNLOAD_AARCH64. But now I
>> think I
>> agree with you because it has a different meaning: DOWNLOAD is a (mostly)
>> arch-independent download, where 1 or
Erich Ritz via SlackBuilds-users writes:
> On Tuesday, November 28th, 2023 at 3:21 AM, Lockywolf
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Hello, colleagues
>>
>> There have been repeated discussions about two features that the current
>> .info file format is missing:
>>
>> 1. aarch64 architecture. If in
On Tuesday, November 28th, 2023 at 3:21 AM, Lockywolf
wrote:
>
>
> Hello, colleagues
>
> There have been repeated discussions about two features that the current
> .info file format is missing:
>
> 1. aarch64 architecture. If in the past slarm64 was still an unofficial
> port, with
Hello, colleagues
There have been repeated discussions about two features that the current
.info file format is missing:
1. aarch64 architecture. If in the past slarm64 was still an unofficial
port, with -current it is official, and quite widely available, given
the number of RPi machines
