LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
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 11-02-2005, 02:31 PM   #1
Anonymo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Distribution: Slackware, Archlinux, CentOS
Posts: 183

Rep: Reputation: 27
hwd on Slackware 10.2


How do I replace hotplug in Slackware with hwd like you would in Arch so that my laptop will boot better? Can this be done? Will it help?
 
Old 11-03-2005, 10:43 AM   #2
uopjohnson
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: San Francisco
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, RHEL, OS X
Posts: 159

Rep: Reputation: 30
What is the problem with your boot? I'm not sure that this can be done, but first lets try and figure out if it needs to be done. You can disable hotplug at boot, or any of its modules if they are slowing you down.
 
Old 11-07-2005, 05:31 PM   #3
Anonymo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Distribution: Slackware, Archlinux, CentOS
Posts: 183

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 27
how can this be done?

can you point me in the right direccion?

i have a compaq evo n800v laptop

what do i need?

it takes forever to boot because of all the stuff that starts up, especially hotplug
 
Old 11-07-2005, 06:15 PM   #4
masonm
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Following the white rabbit
Distribution: Slackware64 13.37 Android 4.0
Posts: 2,248

Rep: Reputation: 46
Ok, first of all what exactly is the problem you're trying to solve? "so my laptop will boot better" doesn't say much.

To disable any modules for hotplug, just list them in hotplug's blacklist file.
 
Old 11-07-2005, 08:26 PM   #5
gbonvehi
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Argentina (SR, LP)
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,145

Rep: Reputation: 51
Anonymo probably the best way is to see all loaded modules by hotplug with lsmod, add lines to modprobe them all in /etc/rc.d/rc.modules and disable hotplug with chmod -x /etc/rc.d/rc.hotplug
 
Old 12-09-2005, 07:51 PM   #6
Anonymo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Distribution: Slackware, Archlinux, CentOS
Posts: 183

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 27
Pacman for Slackware

Has anyone ported Arch's pacman to Slackware besides Rubix and Frugalware?

I mean used it without changing Slackware. Rubix uses .rub extension and both have their own repos.

I mean change it so it uses linuxpackages and slackware official repos to update, upgrade or install packages.

Can this even be done and if yes, how theoretically speaking?
 
Old 12-09-2005, 08:07 PM   #7
MS3FGX
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 5,852

Rep: Reputation: 351Reputation: 351Reputation: 351Reputation: 351
I guess there really isn't much of a demand for a pacman port, there are already multiple 3rd party package managers for Slackware.
 
Old 12-09-2005, 08:26 PM   #8
Anonymo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Distribution: Slackware, Archlinux, CentOS
Posts: 183

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS3FGX
I guess there really isn't much of a demand for a pacman port, there are already multiple 3rd party package managers for Slackware.
That's true, but I've been using Arch Linux for a while and find that Pacman is just so simple. It would give another level of control and simplicity to Slackware and it sticks to KISS. I thought about this because you can install a base system for slackware and then from there install all other packages you could/would ever want w/ dependancies resolved. It would also be that simple to remove a package. I know... I could just use Rubix, Arch or Frugalware. I do, but I love Slackware so much and to be able to use the packages that are already available make my the genius that is Pat. They are stable and I don't want a Slackware that is changed so much that it is no longer recognizable, stable or simple. What these other distros do is that they make their own distros and break stuff that works in the original. I also tried slapt-get and it was okay, but I like pacman better. It's just a thought that I had...maybe when I learn how to program, I can do this.
 
Old 12-09-2005, 08:27 PM   #9
Anonymo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Distribution: Slackware, Archlinux, CentOS
Posts: 183

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS3FGX
I guess there really isn't much of a demand for a pacman port, there are already multiple 3rd party package managers for Slackware.
That's true, but I've been using Arch Linux for a while and find that Pacman is just so simple. It would give another level of control and simplicity to Slackware and it sticks to KISS. I thought about this because you can install a base system for slackware and then from there install all other packages you could/would ever want w/ dependancies resolved. It would also be that simple to remove a package. I know... I could just use Rubix, Arch or Frugalware. I do, but I love Slackware so much and to be able to use the packages that are already available made by the genius that is Pat. They are stable and I don't want a Slackware that is changed so much that it is no longer recognizable, stable or simple. What these other distros do is that they make their own distros and break stuff that works in the original. I also tried slapt-get and it was okay, but I like pacman better. Also simple to make source programs. It's just a thought that I had...maybe when I learn how to program, I can do this.
 
Old 12-09-2005, 09:25 PM   #10
nick_th_fury
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Distribution: Slackware, NetBSD
Posts: 147

Rep: Reputation: 18
Does Arch/Pacman place dependancy info in its packages? If it doesn't then it might work I suppose. Most package managers would have problems with slack packs though. Since Pat does not place that type of info in them.
 
Old 12-09-2005, 09:46 PM   #11
Anonymo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Distribution: Slackware, Archlinux, CentOS
Posts: 183

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 27
Good point. I don't know, but I believe that it probably does.
 
Old 12-09-2005, 10:11 PM   #12
MS3FGX
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 5,852

Rep: Reputation: 351Reputation: 351Reputation: 351Reputation: 351
Quote:
Does Arch/Pacman place dependancy info in its packages? If it doesn't then it might work I suppose. Most package managers would have problems with slack packs though. Since Pat does not place that type of info in them.
It doesn't really matter. Slapt-get adds dependency information to the Slackware packages by adding more lines to the normal Slackware package description file.

This works fine in both cases, Slackware's official package manager simply does not read this data (it was never designed too) and ignores it, slapt-get, on the other hand, just reads a bit rather into the description file, and is able to find the dependencies.

Linuxpackages.net also asks that package creators add in dependency information by putting in a "slack-required" file in the packages. Again, the official package manager just ignores this.

So to do dependency resolution on 3rd party packages wouldn't be a problem, unless you are talking about official packages right off the CD, in which case you may have a problem.
 
Old 12-09-2005, 10:51 PM   #13
nick_th_fury
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Distribution: Slackware, NetBSD
Posts: 147

Rep: Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS3FGX
It doesn't really matter. Slapt-get adds dependency information to the Slackware packages by adding more lines to the normal Slackware package description file.


It does matter. As those are not official slackware packages.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MS3FGX


So to do dependency resolution on 3rd party packages wouldn't be a problem, unless you are talking about official packages right off the CD, in which case you may have a problem.

Thats what he said he was wanting to do. So it probably will not work without building an external package database. Not positive, but I believe thats what swaret did.

Last edited by nick_th_fury; 12-09-2005 at 10:56 PM.
 
Old 12-10-2005, 12:43 AM   #14
Anonymo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Distribution: Slackware, Archlinux, CentOS
Posts: 183

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 27
thank you for your responses. This issue has been on my mind for a while now. I think that it could work, but a little work has to go into it. Just checking with everyone to see what they thought.

Thanks nick_th_fury and MS3FGX


--Anonymo
 
Old 12-10-2005, 12:57 AM   #15
Anonymo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Distribution: Slackware, Archlinux, CentOS
Posts: 183

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 27
oh and also, I am going to talk to Rubix
 
  


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
pacman alaios Linux - Games 1 08-20-2005 03:34 AM
pacman and proxy authentication jsmarshall85 Arch 1 07-08-2005 02:00 PM
pacman error sharky Arch 3 11-08-2004 04:45 AM
pacman not working correctly! Aman9090 Arch 2 03-26-2004 05:32 AM
What happened to Pacman? jenna_h Linux - Software 2 05-15-2003 10:04 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 PM.

Main Menu
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
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration