I have not been able to get to linuxpackages.net for a couple of days. Anybody know what is going on?

-JJ

I can only hope it's down. It's been luring in the uneducated and misinformed for some time now. It is potentially dangerous to use packages sourced from unknown 3rd parties and even more so to do it from lp.net.

I can only hope that those that have been getting their software from lp.net take the time while it is down to look at the *right* way to get software for Slackware. Whether it's your own, someone else's, Pat's or from http://slackbuilds.org, you should use a SlackBuild to generate a package for you from the source you can download from the authors themselves, or in the least you should explicitly trust the person who built a package you are about to install (i.e. alienBOB, rworkman and others).

Some pointers:

http://slackbuilds.org/howto/
http://sbopkg.org
http://beginlinux.com/desktop_traini...age-management

1 members found this post helpful.

I google lp.net and down and got a bad report from another site. I never had any problems with the packages before. But any more, I get GSB and the rest I get from slackbuilds. I end up setting my builds for i686. Oh well....

Thx.

-JJ

I agree with zordrak. I do not use Slackware packages from untrusted sources. I will use security updates from an official Slackware mirror(slackpkg), build scripts from SBo, and packages built by rworkman and alienBOB.

I won't be as venomous against lp, but zordrak is correct. If you've made the decision to run Slackware you should adhere to certain ways of properly administering/maintaining your system.

I won't deny that I have used LinuxPackages.net in the past, but it has been some years, before SlackBuilds.org

Problems with LinuxPackages are (were?):
- you won't know what's in the package
- no standard where to install things
- no sources available

For me Slackware has always stood for "being in control", that doesn't happen using packages from LinuxPackages.net

They had their place in time, they won't be missed by me now.

While I agree with the general part of your post, I DON'T fully agree with the LP.net specific part.

When I started using Slackware LP.net helped out of a number of problems, as it closed many gaps in the software included with Slackware at that time. I wasn't very experienced in compiling stuff from source, and sometimes I didn't manage to make a binary that would run on my system. For example, Ken Zalewski's packages for HPLIP and Wine saved my day, more than once.

I completely agree with your recommendation to prefer software from trusted sources. But I have learned to trust in Ken's packages (and some others', too). They never failed for me, and Ken provided very gentle and patient support, when I had a question or problem. But how does a Slackware newbie know whom to trust?

It is true, that not all the package maintainers deliver packages with quality at the level of Ken's stuff, but that doesn't justify bashing this useful repository in total, IMHO.

Please be fair. The quality assurance of LP.net may not be up to the standards set by SlackBuilds.org; but I get a binary, that just works. And sometimes, this is all I want.

Although I had one or two cases, when a package from LP.net wouldn't work as expected, this was no problem: In both cases may emails were answered by the package maintainer and a working package was provided quickly.

So yes: Be careful, where you get your software from.
But no: Packages from LP.net are not all bad, per se.

As I said: In my early days, weeks and even years, the packages from LP.net got me going and made Slackware usable for me. I wouldn't be a Slackware user today, if LP.net had not been there.

gargamel

The site is online again...
There hasn't been much activity lately, apparently, there are still no packages for SW 13 available.

http://slackadelic.com/2007/04/11/li...lly-malicious/

With respect to the above, I am being fair. My comments were measured and accurate.

SlackBuilds.Org and sbopkg together provide exactly what you need. All you have to worry about is that you end up with the binary, the compilation process is taken care of for you.

If you absolutely must have pre-compiled packages then a trusted author is essential. alienBOB and rworkman and a couple of others provide exactly that and provide their SlackBuilds along side so you can see what you're getting very clearly.

It's a matter of acceptable risk. In my eyes and the eyes of many others, LP.net is an unacceptable risk, and as such it should not be recommended to those who aren't totally familiar with their options.

I am guessing that your early days were before the existence of SBo and its community. Now that there's a very mature and complete semifficial framework for 3rd party software there is little reason to use anything else.

I might be a freak. I used packages from LP.net years ago, later I checked pretty much what they did and guessed the compilation flags, and then made my own SlackBuilds (some time ago when I got tired of typing the flags for everything).

By the way they are made conforming to the old Shilo model (a perfect SlackBuild), not to the SBO standards.

Then Slackware 11 did not come with GNOME so I built my own GNOME. I used the garnome and FRG (and later gsb) projects as reference, but I tweaked it the way I liked (taking off all the bloat).

When SBO appeared I started checking them out. But I almost never compile them right away. I always check the SlackBuild, see what flags/options/patches they might be using, and make my own SlackBuilds. It is time-consuming but in the end I am happy controlling everything in detail. (I even compile my own glibc and kernel - gave up compiling gcc because it was too much trouble, and am looking forward implementing a Plasma-based kdesktop, kicker and kcontrol some time in the future). I compile my own Firefox, and starting from Monday my own Thunderbird. Control above all.

That sounded like Sauron but that's the way I like it.