Greetings!

I was just wondering if it isn't safe to upgrade the Slackware 10.0 packages (or some of them, at least) to the current packages?
So far I've only updated Bash (3.00.15) and Tar (1.15.1) and haven't had any problems. However, I'm relatively new to Linux and am not too sure 'bout any dependencies and such.

I suspect I shouldn't have any problems, but a confirmation from someone more experienced would be appreciated.

I'm running slackware-current as of january 3rd... it's very stable.. i haven't had any problems at all.. slackware-current is probably much more stable than something like fedora 3...

you can get the slackware-current isos online.. and just a fresh-install..
ftp://inferno.bioinformatics.vt.edu - there's one

some of them do require some things no available in current so be careful. The last time I upgraded Xorg, it was compiled against glibc-2.3.4 and (at least at the time) since there wasn't a glibc-2.3.4 package available from -current, I had to manually upgrade it.

Some have reported problems with gtk-2.6 also but I'm sure there are more.

That's a slightly difficult question to answer. Piecemeal upgrading can get you just the program you want. However, dependencies can be hidden within a given package. For instance, xscreensaver-4.16 relied on the XFreeOrg libraries. xscreensaver-4.18 rely on the XOrg libraries. You can't update one without updating the other as well.

There are really 3 viable ways to keep your system up-to-date. The first is do what you were doing...log into the Slackware FTP site and download the latest version of packages and run the upgradepkg yourself. This is very time-consuming and is generally a pain in the neck.

Options 2 and 3 are to use either slapt-get or swaret, which are more automated programs to essentially do the same thing. Personally I prefer slapt-get, but I certainly make no claim that it is the best way -- it just works well for my needs.

That being said, I've had problems before with both slapt-get and swaret, so a little bit of caution should be exercised regardless of the update method.

Fair enough. I'm not really interested in a complete upgrade/fresh install (yet!), but still like to keep my most frequently used and favourite things up to date. Thanks for the prompt replies!

I've been running with the current tree for as long as it 's been available. I can recall only one or two problems.

I don't immediately jump on an updated package just because it's in the current tree.
I'll usually wait a week or two to see if any issues arise and a newer version is added. If not, I'll go ahead and upgrade.

A case in point is the Bash package you mentioned. When Version 3 was released there were some bugs, that, while not deadly, were annoying. It was two or three weeks before they were patched and a week or two before the Slack package incorporated the patches.

Just keep the previous package from the stable tree on hand in case whatever current package you may install barfs on you. Then you can drop back if need be.

I constantly run -current on my main Slack box without issues. I used to use swaret, and don't have a problem with it. But I'm one of those folks who don't mind doing stuff by hand. I've used the UPGRADE.txt and Changelog.txt file on the FTP server to come to my own understanding on what's important and what isn't, which dictates the order in which I upgrade packages. Specifically, I pretty much always upgrade in the folder order they appear. /a are really the heart of Slackware. And the UPGRADE.txt file mentions a couple packages that should be updated before any others: glibc-solibs & pkgtools, if my memory is correct.

My first serious Slack install was v 8.0. Like an idiot, I manually upgraded from that to 8.1, which was a major pain because of the new package-naming scheme. But it taught me alot about upgradeing, that's for sure.

If you're only concerned about security updates, you can refer to the Changelog or www.slackware.com/security and only apply those updates. But that might lead to a less-stable system than simply upgrading to -current. (For example, if a security fix is made to a package that incorporates an updated library required by the new package, I'm nost sure if Patrick lists both on the security list. It should appear in the Changelog, though.)

Garry

I doubt that a 10.0 with security patches is less stable than current.

I am pretty sure that Pat V. takes every effort to avoid introducing inconsistencies to a stable version by applying security fixes.

To my understanding the philosophy to make a release is to freeze a particularly stable snapshot of current. To that snapshot only security patches will be applied until it is released.

Slackware-current, on the other hand, is for testing and improving, in order to prepare the next release. Having said that, current is remarkably stable. Much better than release versions of some other distros... But as a matter of fact, releases are based on particularly stable and robust snapshots of Slackware-current.

If you want to use the latest and greatest on your desktop or laptop computer, current is probably an excellent choice. On a mission critical production server, however, I wouldn't want to take the risk...

gargamel