Oops! I already changed it and did see a diffrence between your changes and the original script, and those are, in line 2, you added one more = between, "if argv = None or len(argv)!=1:" so it now reads, "if argv == None or len(argv)!=1:"

and in line 5 the last 1 was changed to a 0 so it now reads, "builder=factory.get_builder(get_slackbuild(os.getcwd(),argv[0]))"


So, I should change it all back?

Thanks.

I found a script from a Carlos Corbacho and its def main section reads as follows:

def main(argv=None):
173 if argv is None or len(argv) != 1:
174 raise Exception("Invalid number of arguments")
175
176 factory = BuildFactory()
177 builder = factory.get_builder(get_slackbuild(os.getcwd(), argv[0]))
178
179 print builder.convert()

So which is correct?
Thanks.

Both are, but use the new one from Carlos Corbacho.

Thanks! So noted.

I remember hearing an interview where Pat stated that if he ever did a 64-bit Slackware it would be pure 64bit (not multilib). That implies to me that he's waiting until 32-bit is completely obsolete and 64-bit can do everything with no drawbacks and not reason for lingering 32-bit libraries. So bw64 is more likely to become "official" than slamd64.

That said, this is LINUX. Why are you letting an insignificant title like "official" get in your way? Do what you want. Pat won't sue you because you're running a version of Slackware that he didn't personally compile...

That would be a very sad day ... for all the work Fred put into it, and the litte work the maker of bw64 put into it. It would be the greatest injustice I can think of. I can only hope it does not happen.

Bluewhite64 advertises itself as "pure 64bit" but that is a false claim. They have added 32bit libraries just like slamd64 - because the users have a need for it.

But unlike slamd64 which was built for multilib and follows FHS rules (see http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#LIB64) the 32bit support in Bluewhite64 was added as an afterthought (remember that Bluewhite64 started out as a rip of slamd64 but with the 32bit libraries and the use of lib64 removed).

I am pretty sure that none of these two will ever be considered to be used as an official slackware64. But in the end, it is still Pat Volkerding who makes the call.

For sure I hope Bluewhite64 is not under consideration - whose ChangeLog.txt is so much a shameless copy/paste of the Slackware ChangeLog.txt that I have no happy feelings at all when I read comments like "Huge thanks to all the Bluewhite64 users who helped on this release! Enjoy!" without even once mentioning the Slackware developers and community who made it possible that they could rip off another release.

Eric

I don't use BW64 and don't intend to. Looking at the ChangLog.txt's from BW64 it's obvious where the original document came from. What I find rather rude is that arny removes credit to the person who provided the code or spotted the problem etc. Pat, on the other hand, gives credit to the contributor.

The default installation of Bluewhite64, I mean if you install all software series, you will have a pure 64-bit GNU/Linux. So, it is pure. IF you need to run 32-bit programs then you have to install the IA32 Emulation packages found in the /extra. So, I repeat, it is pure, those IA32 packages are just extra packages, not installed by default!

Please excuse me that I did not mentioned you and other Slackware developers, but I made it in the past and it is obvious that without your work Bluewhite64 won't exist. I will mention it in future releases and repeat every time, if your eyes will love this, OK ?

About removing the credits from the ChangeLog, since it did not sent to me the contribution is is not necessary to mention. I made it in the past and peoples asked why I mentioned because did not contributed direct to me. So, if I add is is not OK, if I did not add is not good. So, what is the right choice?

i think if slackware is open like ubuntu we would see large developments
right?

And that's good??

i think that will make slackware more tested by a lot of users and new projects will be made
and SW will be updated quickly rather than tested by PAT
this is my own idea and it may be wrong

life better ? no
the computer faster ? OH YES 3 to 4 times faster on my laptop

NO, too many hands in the pie!!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way Slackware is progressing. If you want bleeding edge, than compile your own packages or use Ubombtu.

Slackware has the current branch for upcoming release testing and a lot of users follow this branch and report back when things go awry (which isn't often).

Ah yes, another one parroting the "Slackware is not open" line of bullshit.
Slackware is fully open - you can get the sources any time you wish. If your definition of "open" is along the lines of "anyone can get write access to the tree," then, no, Slackware will never be open. Slackware is what it is precisely due to NOT being that "open" - and that's a good thing.