LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   Sbopkg 0.30.1 Released (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/sbopkg-0-30-1-released-751610/)

chess 08-31-2009 05:16 PM

Sbopkg 0.30.1 Released
 
I wanted to wait a few days to post this here (and most folks here probably already know this) but sbopkg version 0.30.1 has been released (which is a bugfix release to the sbopkg 0.30.0 release for Slackware 13.0). The 0.30.x branch of sbopkg has many substantial changes from prior versions, and is intended to work seamlessly with Slackware 13.0 32 and 64 bit and the SlackBuilds.org repository for Slackware 13.0.

Check out the sbopkg ChangeLog for information about what's new. You can also read about the "new and improved" sbopkg queuefiles here.

For those migrating from 0.27.4 and older, it is recommended that you uninstall the old version of sbopkg and then install the new one, instead of upgrading.

Check out http://www.sbopkg.org for a package or source tarball for version 0.30.1. If you encounter any issues, please post to the sbopkg mailing list instead of posting here. Please file bug reports at the sbopkg Issue tracker.

Thanks to everybody to helped with testing, feedback, and providing bug reports. Those kinds of things are extremely helpful and we really appreciate it. We want sbopkg to be as good as possible, and your feedback is very important.

Thanks!

P.S. Many people have asked how to set $ARCH if they are using sbopkg on Slackware64. The answer is: you don't necessarily need to do anything. Sbopkg checks the output of 'uname -m' and if it returns 'x86_64' then it will build a 64 bit package (assuming the SlackBuild script supports a 64 bit package, of course).

adriv 08-31-2009 05:33 PM

Thank you Chess!
Installed it earlier this evening. Works fine.

bassmadrigal 08-31-2009 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chess (Post 3664560)
I wanted to wait a few days to post this here (and most folks here probably already know this) but sbopkg version 0.30.1 has been released (which is a bugfix release to the sbopkg 0.30.0 release for Slackware 13.0). The 0.30.x branch of sbopkg has many substantial changes from prior versions, and is intended to work seamlessly with Slackware 13.0 32 and 64 bit and the SlackBuilds.org repository for Slackware 13.0.

Is this only for 13.0? Because I don't know when I will have a chance to upgrade my laptop and it is still running 12.1. Or is there even any need to upgrade (does this release only benefit 13.0 users)? I am running 0.27.4.

slackass 08-31-2009 06:41 PM

Thanks Chess!
Installed it last night on Slack64-13 and it works perfect!

chess 08-31-2009 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bassmadrigal (Post 3664609)
Is this only for 13.0? Because I don't know when I will have a chance to upgrade my laptop and it is still running 12.1. Or is there even any need to upgrade (does this release only benefit 13.0 users)? I am running 0.27.4.

Yes, most of the updates are not necessarily 13.0 or 64 bit related. The security enhancements, I think, alone are worth the upgrade. The entire codebase has been cleaned up and improved, and there are several new features and enhancements that would be of some benefit. Check out the ChangeLog I linked to above (see the long list of new things in version 0.30.0).

chess 08-31-2009 09:30 PM

Re-reading my reply, I think was a bit unclear by beginning with "Yes." :-)

What I meant to say is that sbopkg 0.30.1 is not only for 13.0. I have a 12.2 system that is using 0.30.1 and it works great.

samac 09-01-2009 01:27 AM

Quote:

Sbopkg checks the output of 'uname -m' and if it returns 'x86_64' then it will build a 64 bit package (assuming the SlackBuild script supports a 64 bit package, of course).
What happens if the slackbuild is 32-bit only, is there a change in the naming, e.g. i486 as opposed to x86_64. What I am trying to say is, how do we know how sbopkg has compiled the program, is it 32-bit or is it 64-bit?

samac

chess 09-01-2009 05:16 AM

Yes, the naming will be different. If uname -m does not return x86_64, then sbopkg falls back to the default situation, which means ARCH will be whatever is in the SlackBuild, or whatever the user has set ARCH to in his environment.

So, the package will have 'i486' in the name in most cases on 32 bit.

bassmadrigal 09-01-2009 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chess (Post 3664773)
Re-reading my reply, I think was a bit unclear by beginning with "Yes." :-)

What I meant to say is that sbopkg 0.30.1 is not only for 13.0. I have a 12.2 system that is using 0.30.1 and it works great.

Thank you. That clears it up, and I have updated. Thank you for such an awesome program.

samac 09-01-2009 11:00 AM

Quote:

If uname -m does not return x86_64, then sbopkg falls back to the default situation
Sorry Chess, I didn't make myself totally clear. What I meant was, if uname -m returns x86_64, but the slackbuild can only be built, or only has instructions for, 32-bit, does the built package have x86_64 or i486?

samac

chess 09-01-2009 11:10 AM

To be more precise, if 'uname -m' is not i.86, then ARCH is set to 'uname -m'. Thus, ARCH will be set to x86_64 on 64 bit systems. One can look to the SlackBuild and determine what the resulting package (and its name) will be if ARCH is set to x86_64. If one wants something else, they can always override it with 'export ARCH=i686 && sbopkg -b foo' for example.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 AM.