Which package manager do you like more, TXZ or Pacman?
Linux - DistributionsThis forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on...
Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Which package manager do you like more, TXZ or Pacman?
Well I have been bouncing around a little with different distro's lately. But my favorite so far is Arch Linux. I really do like Pacman. I have already looked into the why's and such on why Arch is just faster then anything else for me. So no need to get into all of that in this thread.
I am currently using Sabayon. I like it, nothing at all wrong with it but it is not what I want. Arch ruined other distro's for me, lol.
But... I have also been hearing great things about Slackware.
I am planning on installing Arch but I am wondering if I should try Slackware first.
So my question boils down to the package management of the two. Which one do you like better and why?
Edit: Distrowatch has TXZ as Slackware package management, is this correct? I never used Slackware so I don't know.
My experience is limited to Slackware and derivatives, Fedora & Co., and FreeBSD. I intend to try Arch one of these days as it is has an awful reputation. Nevertheless, Slackware's pkgtools are quite unique in that they do not resolve or care about dependencies. You may think of it as:
# cd /
# tar xvf appname-version_no-arch.t?z
However, the packages are still cleverly organized by the pkgtool. It is not a dump tool, but you may tune it to do the most absurd things if you want to as it is written in shell.
The emphasis is on simplicity, and frankly, I cannot imagine a faster packaging tool. Do not consider the dependency limitation as a limitation. If you follow a default installation, then all your dependencies are there. For extra packages, you will will need sbopkg and slackbuilds.org. They also handle dependencies via third party queue files in git repos.
Chris
Last edited by ChrisAbela; 12-20-2010 at 01:16 PM.
Distrowatch has TXZ as Slackware package management, is this correct? I never used Slackware so I don't know.
Not really. The Slackware package tools are called pkgtool. It is an ncurses tool that may used on a VT. Or else you may install via slackpkg or directly in CLI:
# installpkg appname-version_no-arch.t?z
The packages may be *.tgz, *.tbz or *.txz and they are all zipped tarballs.
Not really. The Slackware package tools are called pkgtool. It is an ncurses tool that may used on a VT. Or else you may install via slackpkg or directly in CLI:
# installpkg appname-version_no-arch.t?z
The packages may be *.tgz, *.tbz or *.txz and they are all zipped tarballs.
Thanks. I did get it wrong. After I made this "useless" poll I did more research and came across a few things about Slackware package management that made me wonder.
Personally, I prefer Arch's way, but that's mostly because I'm too lazy to figure out and handle dependencies myself.
Even then, I tend to use a 3rd party wrapper for AUR integration.
Automatic Dependency checking is over-rated. For Slackware we do not cater for dependencies, because they are all installed be default. For third party packages created by SlackBuilds, the dependencies are documented in the README, and there are people maintaining queue files for every package in a specific repo (sbopkg.org). These are needed mostly for GNOME packages, that can drive you crazy if you try to follow the dependencies manually.
That may be so, and during the short time I got on with Slackware I'll grant it makes some things easier - but on the whole, where Arch seemed to prefer keeping to only what's necessary to make it work and leave everything else in opt-depends, it's fairly close to that, and IMO a nice way out for those who don't want to do dependencies.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.