SlackBuilds org scripts failing to build on aarch64 (-current)

SCerovec · 04-20-2023, 02:59 PM

This is not the thread, the thread (yet to be posted) will be linked <placeholder> here.

This is for the meanwhile until the thread is up and running.

file:/usr/local/sbin/sbo64ize

Code:

#!/bin/sh

echo $0 "<slackbuild URL>"
echo
echo "try fixup a failing SlackBuild script to compile on aarc64"

if [ -f $1 ]; then
  echo "found:"
  ls $1
  sed -i '/^elif \[ "\$ARCH" = "x86_64" \]; then$/ s/x86_64/aarch64/' $1
else
  echo "Coudn't locate slackbuild [${1}]"
  exit 1
fi

(Thanks go to jloco and kudos to drmozes as I based this on the code snippet from his article on Slackware docs)
Set the file to executable and just point it to any failing slackbuild.

This is a helper until our good maintainers catch up

P.S.
geany-plugins build (recompiled both geany and the plugins). Conky builds (check this thread for pending screenshots)

...

glorsplitz · 04-20-2023, 06:45 PM

good start might need a little tweaking with quirky sbo

Exaga · 04-21-2023, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCerovec

This is not the thread, the thread (yet to be posted) will be linked <placeholder> here.

This is for the meanwhile until the thread is up and running.

file:/usr/local/sbin/sbo64ize

(Thanks go to jloco and kudos to drmozes as I based this on the code snippet from his article on Slackware docs)
Set the file to executable and just point it to any failing slackbuild.

This is a helper until our good maintainers catch up

Not wanting to be Captain Obvious, or trying to throw a spanner in the gears, and this may be a stupid question that has already been asked or discussed or answered, but...

"Is this an attempt to work with any and all existing SBo scripts to easily make them build for Slackware AArch64 and isn't it down to the maintainers to update their SBo scripts accordingly?"

I'm asking because I have built loads of SBo pkgs on Slackware AArch64 and have always needed to modify the code to suit. I assumed once Slackware AArch64 became established (and it very much has been) that all SBo scripts would need to be updated/modified/revised to make them compatible with this architecture, just as they were to include ARM architecture back in the day.

One of the SBo scripts which I maintain is cloog, which I submitted approx. a year ago, and I made sure (for future proofing purposes) that building for Slackware AArch64 architecture was included within the code. Surely all pre-existing SBo scripts that do not already support building for Slackware Aarch64 will require an update to make them compatible? I hope that this will be top of the TO-DO list for SBo maintainers right now. Maybe sending out an email to all of them might prompt a quick response to speed up the process.

Again, I apologise if this has already been covered in previous discussions but I'm just trying to get my head around your concept and idea(s).

SCerovec · 04-21-2023, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exaga

Not wanting to be Captain Obvious, or trying to throw a spanner in the gears, and this may be a stupid question that has already been asked or discussed or answered, but...

"Is this an attempt to work with any and all existing SBo scripts to easily make them build for Slackware AArch64 and isn't it down to the maintainers to update their SBo scripts accordingly?"

I'm asking because I have built loads of SBo pkgs on Slackware AArch64 and have always needed to modify the code to suit. I assumed once Slackware AArch64 became established (and it very much has been) that all SBo scripts would need to be updated/modified/revised to make them compatible with this architecture, just as they were to include ARM architecture back in the day.

One of the SBo scripts which I maintain is cloog, which I submitted approx. a year ago, and I made sure (for future proofing purposes) that building for Slackware AArch64 architecture was included within the code. Surely all pre-existing SBo scripts that do not already support building for Slackware Aarch64 will require an update to make them compatible? I hope that this will be top of the TO-DO list for SBo maintainers right now. Maybe sending out an email to all of them might prompt a quick response to speed up the process.

Again, I apologise if this has already been covered in previous discussions but I'm just trying to get my head around your concept and idea(s).

IMHO the only wrong questions are those that weren't asked out loud.

Re Your question: no this is not a solution, even less an attempt - it is merely a temporary fix to get those few packages going (namely conky and maybe one or two more) just to lift the stomach off the ground. As You noted, the proper thing to do is to have the fixes in the each their own SlackBuilds.

IMHO SlackBuilds should ideally be "arch agnostic" - otherwise it's defeating the purpose - but that's just me I guess...

Summoning the whole team should ideally be performed by one of their own - as I one time too many saw a team react with rustled feathers if pinged en masse

by an outsider...

Even more ideally would be that said one of their own approaches us and informs us what's going on already and what we can contribute (and how) - as seasoned slackers (as we are

)

glorsplitz · 04-21-2023, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCerovec

IMHO the only wrong questions are those that weren't asked out loud.

IMHO SlackBuilds should ideally be "arch agnostic" - otherwise it's defeating the purpose - but that's just me I guess...

Yes, and no it's not just you.