From sbop.echo.towerboy at xoxy.net  Fri Nov  9 20:27:12 2012
From: sbop.echo.towerboy at xoxy.net (sbop.echo.towerboy at xoxy.net)
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:27:12 -0600
Subject: [sbopkg-users] GPG Check Failure
Message-ID: <CAO8xqrPzhqKgDgLyS0eHxEkT9vJgywAo6o4AGRFdRzmn2bByFg@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/30/12, sbop.echo.towerboy at xoxy.net wrote:
> Does anyone know why the GPG check fails?  It does not fail on the
> laptop with the original installation of sbopkg, and which I synchronize
> with on-line repositories.

Once I synchronized the repository on the desktop PC while on-line,
I'm able to compile packages without any errors about GPG checks.  I
guess the problem is that I was using sbopkg in a manner not foreseen
by the developers.  Since it doesn't seem to have come up before, I
don't think it's worth changing the program to accommodate strange use
cases like mine, so I wrote this so that if anyone else has this
problem, a possible solution is in the archived e-mails.
-- 
                    Chick


From c at catcons.co.uk  Fri Nov 16 04:16:19 2012
From: c at catcons.co.uk (Charles)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:46:19 +0530
Subject: [sbopkg-users] Enhancement request: queue files
Message-ID: <50A5BE13.8040303@catcons.co.uk>

Hello :-)

In /usr/doc/sbopkg-<version>/README-queuefiles, how about explaining
comment lines and empty -- or is it ^[ \t]*$ -- lines?

How about allowing a comment on the end of data lines?  For example:

<package name> [ | <build options> ] [ # <comment text> ]

and

@<queue name> [ # <comment text> ]

This would be useful in queue files with many package names when
ordering the packages by name (within pre-req constraints) helps
eliminate duplicate entries.  When comments associated with a package
must appear on a separate line, the list must be manually sorted.

Best

Charles

From slakmagik at gmail.com  Fri Nov 16 20:39:07 2012
From: slakmagik at gmail.com (slakmagik)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:39:07 -0500
Subject: [sbopkg-users] Enhancement request: queue files
In-Reply-To: <50A5BE13.8040303@catcons.co.uk>
References: <50A5BE13.8040303@catcons.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20121116203907.GA18906@devbox>

On 2012-11-16 (Fri) 09:46:19 [+0530], Charles wrote:
> Hello :-)
> 
> In /usr/doc/sbopkg-<version>/README-queuefiles, how about explaining
> comment lines and empty -- or is it ^[ \t]*$ -- lines?
> 
> How about allowing a comment on the end of data lines?  For example:
> 
> <package name> [ | <build options> ] [ # <comment text> ]
> 
> and
> 
> @<queue name> [ # <comment text> ]
> 
> This would be useful in queue files with many package names when
> ordering the packages by name (within pre-req constraints) helps
> eliminate duplicate entries.  When comments associated with a package
> must appear on a separate line, the list must be manually sorted.
> 

Queuefiles should either be generated (commentless) or hand-crafted (so
hand-sorted (unless simply reversed through sbopkg's UI)) and sbopkg
already checks for and skips duplicates so you don't need to worry about
that.

That said, it has sort of bothered me on general principle that we don't
allow for such comments and we do have two different functions for the
same basic purpose, one of which *does* allow for trailing comments
(can_skip_line() and stripcom()). So that'll likely be changed soon.
Thanks for the suggestion.

And we work hard to give sbopkg the best documentation we can and I'm
still occasionally amazed at what's missing. That'll definitely be added
and thanks very much for pointing it out. In answer to your question,
it's "blank" more than "empty" as can_skip_line() practically checks for
'^[ \t]*$' and stripcom() literally does.

From c at catcons.co.uk  Sat Nov 17 07:31:29 2012
From: c at catcons.co.uk (Charles)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:01:29 +0530
Subject: [sbopkg-users] Enhancement request: /etc/sbopkg/repos.d
	documentation
Message-ID: <50A73D51.6010503@catcons.co.uk>

Hello :-)

All the functional files in (version 0.36.0) /etc/sbopkg/repos.d have
this first line:

# DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE. CHANGES WILL BE OVERWRITTEN. See the README

Presumably the README is the file identified by the
/etc/sbopkg/repos.d/README symlink which is
/usr/doc/sbopkg-0.36.0/README-repos

/usr/doc/sbopkg-0.36.0/README-repos does not include a description of
how the /etc/sbopkg/repos.d functional files are generated or how to
change them.

Best

Charles

From c at catcons.co.uk  Sat Nov 17 07:49:17 2012
From: c at catcons.co.uk (Charles)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:19:17 +0530
Subject: [sbopkg-users] How to set up and use a local repository?
Message-ID: <50A7417D.7000608@catcons.co.uk>

Hello :-)

What is the best way to set up a local repository (as opposed to a local
copy of the slackbuild.org repository)?

I followed the sbopkg.conf man page, section REPO_NAME, where it says
"The local' choice corresponds to a user-maintained repository whose
structure must be the same as the one used by SBo, in the sense of a
category/package/files hierarchy".

I set up a directory structure for the local repository and unpacked
three non-standard SlackBuilds into it:

/var/lib/sbopkg/local/
`-- 14.0
    |-- academic
    |-- accessibility
    |-- audio
    |-- business
    |-- desktop
    |-- development
    |-- games
    |-- graphics
    |-- ham
    |-- haskell
    |-- libraries
    |   |-- tbb
    |   `-- xapian-core
    |-- misc
    |-- multimedia
    |-- network
    |   `-- spideroak
    |-- office
    |-- perl
    |-- python
    |-- ruby
    `-- system

I tried to build and install the three SlackBuilds from the command line:

root at CW8:~# sbopkg -V local/14.0 -i 'spideroak tbb xapian-core'
Unknown repository name -- "local/14.0"
root at CW8:~# sbopkg -V local -i 'spideroak tbb xapian-core'
Queuefile or package spideroak not found - skipping.
Queuefile or package tbb not found - skipping.
Queuefile or package xapian-core not found - skipping.

Got the same error messages after replacing the -V option with both
-D /var/lib/sbopkg/local
and
-D /var/lib/sbopkg/local/14.0

I added a line to /etc/sbopkg/repos.d/50-local.repo:

local 14.0 "Local repository for Slackware 14.0" _SBo  "" "" ""

and ran the first command again:

root at CW8:~# sbopkg -V local/14.0 -i 'spideroak tbb xapian-core'
Queuefile or package spideroak not found - skipping.
Queuefile or package tbb not found - skipping.
Queuefile or package xapian-core not found - skipping

What to do?

Best

Charles

From slakmagik at gmail.com  Sat Nov 17 21:59:27 2012
From: slakmagik at gmail.com (slakmagik)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 16:59:27 -0500
Subject: [sbopkg-users] Enhancement request: /etc/sbopkg/repos.d
 documentation
In-Reply-To: <50A73D51.6010503@catcons.co.uk>
References: <50A73D51.6010503@catcons.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20121117215927.GA26203@devbox>

On 2012-11-17 (Sat) 13:01:29 [+0530], Charles wrote:
> Hello :-)
> 
> All the functional files in (version 0.36.0) /etc/sbopkg/repos.d have
> this first line:
> 
> # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE. CHANGES WILL BE OVERWRITTEN. See the README
> 
> Presumably the README is the file identified by the
> /etc/sbopkg/repos.d/README symlink which is
> /usr/doc/sbopkg-0.36.0/README-repos
> 
> /usr/doc/sbopkg-0.36.0/README-repos does not include a description of
> how the /etc/sbopkg/repos.d functional files are generated or how to
> change them.
> 

It's a kind of debianesque/sysv sort of convention that I'm not all that
fond of but numbered files are pretty conventional and many users would
know the protocols but you're right that it's not specifically
documented (the "All *.repo files are scanned in alphabetical order."
part of the README only implies it). Thanks for pointing that out - I'll
also fix that soon, but the answer is that the repos.d files are not
'generated' but the default files are installed with sbopkg (overwriting
any previous copies, so wiping out any edits) so, if the user wishes to
make permanent changes, they need to create files numbered in the order
they want them processed. So you could create a 10.my.repo to get
processed first; a 90-my.repo to get processed last, or a 45 or 55 to
get processed in the middle, etc. Unlike the default files, none of
these will get clobbered (unless something gets changed and there's a
warning in the NEWS file about it ;) ).

From slakmagik at gmail.com  Sat Nov 17 22:08:40 2012
From: slakmagik at gmail.com (slakmagik)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 17:08:40 -0500
Subject: [sbopkg-users] How to set up and use a local repository?
In-Reply-To: <50A7417D.7000608@catcons.co.uk>
References: <50A7417D.7000608@catcons.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20121117220840.GB26203@devbox>

On 2012-11-17 (Sat) 13:19:17 [+0530], Charles wrote:
> Hello :-)
> 
> What is the best way to set up a local repository (as opposed to a local
> copy of the slackbuild.org repository)?
> 
> I followed the sbopkg.conf man page, section REPO_NAME, where it says
> "The local' choice corresponds to a user-maintained repository whose
> structure must be the same as the one used by SBo, in the sense of a
> category/package/files hierarchy".
> 
> I set up a directory structure for the local repository and unpacked
> three non-standard SlackBuilds into it:
> 
> /var/lib/sbopkg/local/
> `-- 14.0
>     |-- academic
>     |-- accessibility
>     |-- audio
>     |-- business
>     |-- desktop
>     |-- development
>     |-- games
>     |-- graphics
>     |-- ham
>     |-- haskell
>     |-- libraries
>     |   |-- tbb
>     |   `-- xapian-core
>     |-- misc
>     |-- multimedia
>     |-- network
>     |   `-- spideroak
>     |-- office
>     |-- perl
>     |-- python
>     |-- ruby
>     `-- system
> 

What you've done there is create a branch/category/package/files
hierarchy rather than a category/package/files hierarchy. And you don't
have to reproduce the exact academic..system hierarchy - it just needs
to have that level. So if you move everything under
/var/lib/sbopkg/local/14.0 to /var/lib/sbopkg/local/ and remove 14.0 it
should work.

From c at catcons.co.uk  Sun Nov 18 01:41:57 2012
From: c at catcons.co.uk (Charles)
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:11:57 +0530
Subject: [sbopkg-users] How to set up and use a local repository?
In-Reply-To: <20121117220840.GB26203@devbox>
References: <50A7417D.7000608@catcons.co.uk> <20121117220840.GB26203@devbox>
Message-ID: <50A83CE5.7020906@catcons.co.uk>

On 18/11/12 03:38, slakmagik wrote:
> On 2012-11-17 (Sat) 13:19:17 [+0530], Charles wrote:
[snip]
> 
> What you've done there is create a branch/category/package/files
> hierarchy rather than a category/package/files hierarchy. And you don't
> have to reproduce the exact academic..system hierarchy - it just needs
> to have that level. So if you move everything under
> /var/lib/sbopkg/local/14.0 to /var/lib/sbopkg/local/ and remove 14.0 it
> should work.

Thanks :-)

Understood.

It would be nice if the branch could be used to facilitate having the
repo on a shared file system for use by many systems.

Best

Charles