LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 01-12-2005, 03:24 PM   #16
reddazz
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 77

There are very valid points brought forward in this thread. I sort of agree with the concept of warnings for dependencies or having some mechanism that installs only required dependencies, instead of having to install all libs or entire package groups just for a few apps to work.
 
Old 01-13-2005, 02:43 AM   #17
erraticassassin
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Slackware 13.1
Posts: 131

Rep: Reputation: 18
As mentioned above, I don't think it would be possible for Mr V to maintain packages for every single application or library that anyone could possibly use. Linuxpackages.net does a pretty good job of that anyway. However, if we could have an official dependency warning tool included in the basic distribution, and an easy to use, open specification for listing the dependencies, then the third-party packagers would be able to provide the necessary dependency information themselves, wouldn't they?
 
Old 01-13-2005, 03:00 AM   #18
dslboy
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Norway
Distribution: Slackware -current
Posts: 157

Rep: Reputation: 30
What's wrong about dependencies? I've never had any problems, just ./configure and you'll find out what you miss, then get the packages and install. I would rather do that, than have a program doing stuff that I dont have any control over... Slackware rocks!
 
Old 01-13-2005, 07:09 AM   #19
erraticassassin
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Slackware 13.1
Posts: 131

Rep: Reputation: 18
Please read the previous posts! What I was suggesting was that, if you use a command line tool to install .tgz packages, it could check dependencies for you and (optionally) warn if any were missing. Not install them for you, just let you know they are needed. Like you, I don't like delegating the update procedure to a script or other automated process, but I see nothing wrong with giving the user the information they need to make their decisions rather than have them hunt around for it... (see also: 'geek-hair-shirt' et al. </tongueincheek>)
 
Old 01-13-2005, 07:57 AM   #20
reddazz
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 77
People are discussing the default package managment in slack, not compiling from source.
 
Old 01-13-2005, 01:53 PM   #21
erraticassassin
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Slackware 13.1
Posts: 131

Rep: Reputation: 18
Just a thought, but does Pat Volkerding ever look at these forums?
 
Old 01-13-2005, 03:07 PM   #22
win32sux
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 380Reputation: 380Reputation: 380Reputation: 380
Quote:
Originally posted by erraticassassin
Just a thought, but does Pat Volkerding ever look at these forums?
i think he does... check this out:
Quote:
This site runs our favorite Slackware questions forum. If you have general Slackware-related questions or need help, this is a great place to join in discussions with a user community that's friendly and eager to help.
http://www.slackware.com/links/


but still, i really doubt he'll add some kinda dependancy feature to the standard slackware distro anytime soon, and IMHO that's a good thing... slackware's always been about giving people the least amount of binary distro tools to work with, and turning pkgtool into an apt look-alike would be ill, IMHO... dependancy features should be optional on slackware, not standard... that's how things are right now anyways, so why fix it if it ain't broken??

Last edited by win32sux; 01-13-2005 at 03:13 PM.
 
Old 01-13-2005, 04:54 PM   #23
reddazz
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 77
It's not necessarily broken, but just coz things were done a certain way sometime ago doesn't mean that you have to stick with to the same thing coz you have to progress.
 
Old 01-13-2005, 04:57 PM   #24
ringwraith
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Distribution: Slackware 15.0
Posts: 1,272

Rep: Reputation: 65
I don't think I would construe him directing people to come here for free suport with him actually coming here and reading the forums.
 
Old 01-13-2005, 05:22 PM   #25
dns21
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: AZ
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 139

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by ringwraith
I don't think I would construe him directing people to come here for free suport with him actually coming here and reading the forums.
Good point, however, I think that it does show that he is aware of the LQ community and puts more trust in LQ for slackware issues than other places, so he must at least have some knowledge of the who's who among linux forums.

I think that these ideas are great.

Now I'm just beginning to become interested in shell scripts but it seems to me that it wouldn't take much to make a script that ran a few commands and displayed the results of the packages that one would need for a certain program. The command line is powerful enough and even though I have not come close to using it properly, in my ignorance it seems as though it would be relatively simple.
 
Old 01-13-2005, 09:19 PM   #26
Lord Zoltar
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 200

Rep: Reputation: 30
I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents:
yeah SOME kind of dependency checker would be nice. maybe if the .tgz file just contained a list of packages needed, written by the developer. then installpkg would just look at the installed libraries, the required libraries, and tell the user if there's any problems but NOT download or install anything more than the original specified package. making the list of required packages could probably even be automated and built in to Kdevelop, Ajunta, and other tools.
 
Old 01-13-2005, 09:52 PM   #27
gmartin
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Distribution: Slackware 13.37 Linux Reg # 341245
Posts: 285

Rep: Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally posted by dns21
Slackware is made simple. It seems to me that if I wanted a computer that made decisions for me, I would run windows. If slack doesn't make you happy, try debian.
Not sure how figuring out my own dependencies can be called simple. It could be called 'basic' or 'bare'. But I do like it!
 
Old 01-14-2005, 04:20 AM   #28
dns21
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: AZ
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 139

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by gmartin
Not sure how figuring out my own dependencies can be called simple. It could be called 'basic' or 'bare'. But I do like it!
I didn't intend to call figuring out dependencies simple, however, I do entirely agree with your description of basic and bare. I was merely describing the distro as a whole, which I have understood to be complicated merely because of the simplicity which contradicts the complexity to a point. That is probably the best that I could word it but I am sure that every slacker could derive my intentions from it (hopefuly).
 
Old 01-14-2005, 12:03 PM   #29
dunric
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Distribution: Void Linux, former Slackware
Posts: 498

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 100Reputation: 100
Wrong conclusions

After reading some posts above I become a bit sad.
Swaret hacks or manual retrieval of missing linked libraries followed by guess-game of proper package name finding "solves" only small set of problems with broken dependencies. Sometimes programs load libraries at runtime and previous hacks are barehanded. Did you ever tried to upgrade f.E. KDE 3.2 to KDE 3.3.1 from Slackware-current (missing libidn) ? And some programs just don't require right libraries but are dependant otherwise, f.E. app direct calling at ghostscript frontends, supporting data files, etc. Idea to solve these problems with full installs is funny, nonsystematic and waste of resources and in many cases just don't work.
When you run your Slack on one desktop with a bit of additional work, you can keep your system running. But if you wish to deploy it to LAN with many w-stations/servers, you lost real chances to keep them all up-to-date (at least security updates) despite of administrator knowledge and experience.
It's so terribly hard and unacceptable to have in slackware package in install directory in addition 1 - 3 small files completely ignored by current pkgtools that may
make life of many admins so easier ? It's a myth you lost any control over package installation. You still have it completely in your hands, just aren't forced to be a detective. See how ArchLinux solved it's package management system. Unfortunately it has a very short history and it's development is too much oriented to bleeding edge. But that's different story ...
 
Old 01-14-2005, 01:42 PM   #30
win32sux
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870

Rep: Reputation: 380Reputation: 380Reputation: 380Reputation: 380
i don't see what the big deal is... if you need all that automation you can always install debian, which is more stable and secure than slackware anyways - traits which make debian the favorite for mission-critical servers...

the fact is that most slackers actually appreciate the absence of automated package tools (and other fluff) in slackware - it's one of the reasons why so many people choose slackware instead of one of the mainstream distros...

also, there's nothing holding anybody back from making a slackware-based distro with full package automation... and why stop there?? throw in a GUI installer, a mandrake-style control center, a heavily-patched kernel, i686 optimization, some wizards and druids, along with anything else you want... it's all good, really...

but seriously, some of us actually like doing detective work, at least on our personal machines...

and i think it's good to work with different distros for different situations, instead of trying to turn one distro into a one-size-fits-all kinda thing...


Last edited by win32sux; 01-14-2005 at 02:31 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SUSE Release 10 RC1 Release Candidate 1 available 1kyle SUSE / openSUSE 8 09-11-2005 06:26 PM
how to solve failed dependency when dependency exists dwcramer Linux - Newbie 2 08-24-2004 09:03 PM
USB Support, UHCI (Intel PIIX4, VIA, ...) Support qingjuan Linux - General 0 03-30-2002 11:46 AM
Help desk / technical support / Customer support Software BaerRS Linux - General 1 12-20-2001 07:16 PM
Recompiling RH 7.1 to disable DMA support - chipset doesn't support properly arby73 Linux - Newbie 0 06-13-2001 10:17 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration