On 3/13/12, David Woodfall <d
...@studioware.org> wrote:
> If the sbo maintainer wants to submit them then that's fine. Otherwise
> it needs a ground up slackbuild built from scratch if someone else
> wants to do it. It's easier if the maintainers of our scripts are
> close to us.
Hm. For TAP, invada, and the LV2 version of SWH, the maintainer would
be me (a fact I had forgotten). I guess I should go through all the
audio-related stuff I submitted to SBo and resubmit to studioware...
Seems like a lot of extra work though. Have to edit the default TAG in
the script, and choose a proper StudioWare category (since they're all
just "audio" on SBo). Not even sure how to submit stuff to StudioWare
(I don't see a "submit" page on the site, do I use git?)
How about if I just make this public statement: StudioWare is welcome
to import any of my SBo SlackBuilds. (Actually, my builds don't bear
a copyright notice, because I don't consider them copyrighted, so the
statement might be redundant. IANAL, YMMV, HAND)
Someone else can do all the submitting (and maintaining, if needed). I
write SlackBuilds because I need them (and because I enjoy writing
them), I upload them to SBo so others can hopefully benefit from my
work. I don't much care if those "others" are getting my scripts from
slackbuilds.org, studioware.org, whatever. All I ask is that whoever
adds my stuff to StudioWare also adds a "modified for StudioWare.org by
(whoever)"... but I'm only asking, not demanding it.
> Having said that I use mkslack to build my slackbuilds, which uses the
> standard sbo templates so our scripts will mostly look the same.
> http://www.dawoodfall.net/index.php/mkslack
> This speeds things up a _lot_
Heh, I use a (completely different, dumber) script I wrote, also called
mkslack. I should think of a different name...
