LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
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 06-17-2010, 07:26 AM   #181
2handband
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota
Distribution: Slackware 13.1
Posts: 809

Rep: Reputation: 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by piratesmack View Post
I just create a script in /etc/rc.d/rc.local_shutdown with
Code:
#!/bin/sh

( cd /tmp || exit 1
  echo "Clearing /tmp."
  ls -A | xargs rm -rf
)
Deletes hidden files in /tmp, too
Couldn't you just stick that same code into the rc.6 script?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-17-2010, 08:06 AM   #182
frostknave
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: The Midwest
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
(Somehow I've missed this thread for 4 months?!?) The thing that I most dislike about Slackware is that it continues to be a long term paradox. Each release seems like the Greatest Thing Ever (sometimes even to the point of where I say it's "perfect") but then the next release comes out and it's even better... better than perfect?!? Now I have the strange situation of having to answer the question, "So, how's the new release of Slackware?" with "Well, not as good as the next one will be, but still... absolutely perfect." Darn it all to heck, Slack team, you give me nothing to complain about, nothing to hate, nothing to have to apologize for. Just an ever more amazing computing experience! For which I say, thank you very much.
 
Old 06-17-2010, 08:08 AM   #183
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Yeah, it's true Slackware is better than perfect ... that should be the new motto.
 
Old 06-17-2010, 08:30 AM   #184
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 1,475

Rep: Reputation: 414Reputation: 414Reputation: 414Reputation: 414Reputation: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2handband View Post
Couldn't you just stick that same code into the rc.6 script?
Yeah, but then you'd have to merge the change with every release.

There is no rc.local_shutdown in any of the packages, so that's not a problem.
 
Old 06-17-2010, 08:53 AM   #185
2handband
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota
Distribution: Slackware 13.1
Posts: 809

Rep: Reputation: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
Yeah, but then you'd have to merge the change with every release.

There is no rc.local_shutdown in any of the packages, so that's not a problem.
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but scripting is something I'm not very experienced with. How do you ensure that it's going to execute on shutdown rather than bootup?
 
Old 06-17-2010, 09:21 AM   #186
Didier Spaier
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slackware{,64}-{14.1,current} on a Lenovo Thinkpad T61 6457-4XG
Posts: 4,157

Rep: Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013
If executable it's called by /etc/rc.d/rc.0, rc.K and rc.6, only.

Code:
# Run any local shutdown scripts:
if [ -x /etc/rc.d/rc.local_shutdown ]; then
  /etc/rc.d/rc.local_shutdown stop
fi
PS In Slackware rc.0 is a symlink to rc.6

Last edited by Didier Spaier; 06-17-2010 at 09:30 AM.
 
Old 06-17-2010, 09:39 AM   #187
2handband
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota
Distribution: Slackware 13.1
Posts: 809

Rep: Reputation: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didier Spaier View Post
If executable it's called by /etc/rc.d/rc.0, rc.K and rc.6, only.

Code:
# Run any local shutdown scripts:
if [ -x /etc/rc.d/rc.local_shutdown ]; then
  /etc/rc.d/rc.local_shutdown stop
fi
PS In Slackware rc.0 is a symlink to rc.6
Terrific; thanks.
 
Old 06-20-2010, 03:21 AM   #188
Ahmed
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: München, Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 386

Rep: Reputation: 41
Probably has been said, but I hate the fact that Slackware still uses lilo as the default bootloader. Lilo is simply antithetical to the flexibility of the entire system, and it's always the very first thing I throw overboard.

-A
 
Old 06-20-2010, 05:56 AM   #189
hitest
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 4,160

Rep: Reputation: 525Reputation: 525Reputation: 525Reputation: 525Reputation: 525Reputation: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahmed View Post
Probably has been said, but I hate the fact that Slackware still uses lilo as the default bootloader. Lilo is simply antithetical to the flexibility of the entire system, and it's always the very first thing I throw overboard.

-A
Why do you hate lilo? I find lilo to be very flexible, it does what I want it to do. It boots Slackware perfectly and it also allows me to easily boot other operating systems on the same PC(Windows, FreeBSD, etc.)
 
Old 06-20-2010, 06:43 AM   #190
nortonlui
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Brazil
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 13

Rep: Reputation: 0
The kernel 2.6.33.4. Why not chosen kernel 2.6.32.15 ?( long term support )
 
Old 06-20-2010, 07:08 AM   #191
Didier Spaier
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slackware{,64}-{14.1,current} on a Lenovo Thinkpad T61 6457-4XG
Posts: 4,157

Rep: Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013Reputation: 1013
Because it was not yet out at time of Slackware release, I guess

Why not 2.6.27.47 then, LOL
 
Old 06-20-2010, 07:34 AM   #192
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,365

Rep: Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by nortonlui View Post
The kernel 2.6.33.4. Why not chosen kernel 2.6.32.15 ?( long term support )
I also regret that choice.

Slackware 12.2 worked out wonderfully for me as it used the 27 series which was the previous long-term kernel.

Greg K-H has already announced that 2.6.33.6 will most likely be the last in the 33 series so 13.1 is going to find itself with an unsupported kernel very early in its lifetime. Updating to a newer branch is an option, but that means that your platform is no longer "stable", which may be a factor for some folk.

Big players like RedHat, Canonical, and Novell, and maybe even debian have the resource to back-port important kernel updates to their stable releases once the kernel devs drop support. The Slackware team aren't in a position to do this, so choosing the right release kernel is all the more important.

IMO Slackware got this one wrong this time. It's too late to do anything about it now though. That horse has already bolted, but there's possibly a lesson here for the future.
 
Old 06-20-2010, 07:40 AM   #193
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,365

Rep: Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didier Spaier View Post
Because it was not yet out at time of Slackware release, I guess

Why not 2.6.27.47 then, LOL
The .32 branch was announced as a long-term kernel a good month or so prior to .33 hitting current. I was very surprised to see .33 hit current at the time.

I know you were being sarcastic about .27, but the difference is that .32 is not obsolete. It's the current long-term supported kernel. In some respects it's more valid a choice than .33 is now because .33 has already been superseded by .34.
 
Old 06-20-2010, 10:15 AM   #194
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,223

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
It is not common practice for Slackware to add new kernels to the patches section of a stable release - except in some cases to plug a critical hole.

No one is stopping you from adding a new kernel to your Slackware system. Unlike Redhat/Novell who keep backporting fixes and enhancements from new kernels to old releases, Slackware assumes that you pick the kernel that suits you best. The use of vanilla kernels in Slackware makes a switch very easy.

The 2.6.33.x kernel was kept in Slackware 13.1 because it works with some devices that are not supported by the 2.6.32.x kernels (at least some netbook network cards), as well working better with our X.Org for Ati cards in particular. Also, ARMedslack required something newer than the 2.6.32.x kernel.

Eric
 
Old 06-20-2010, 11:21 AM   #195
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,365

Rep: Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899Reputation: 899
While it's true that most people can just track the latest kernel branch and make their own custom builds to keep updated, there are times when stability(in the non-changing meaning of the word) is desired and the long-term support kernel is provided for that purpose.

Though new kernels tend to be backwards compatible with older kernels and the libc/headers built against them, I'm not convinced it's safe to run an older kernel on a system with a libc and headers built from a more recent kernel. You might get away with it of course, but the danger is that a new kernel interface/feature was introduced and made use of in the library/headers and when you run on the older kernel that feature will not be available.


What I'm suggesting is that it's better to freeze libc/headers for the latest long-term kernel, regardless of whether you include a more recent kernel as a default runtime kernel as this will allow people the option to run either the default or revert to the long-term kernels if stability is important to them. If you wanted to be extra nice you could even include the long-term kernel in /extra as an option.

The nice thing about Slackware 12.2 coinciding with the long-term kernel was that it was possible to follow 2.6.27.y all the way up to 2.6.27.47 (released just a few weeks back). If Slackware 13.1 had shipped with the option of using 2.6.32, it would have been good for at least a good year or so, just like 12.2 turned out to be.
 
  


Reply

Tags
awesome, feedback missing, fud, slackware, slackware64, slackwarecurrent


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
Post Slackware distros Tylerious Linux - Distributions 15 02-16-2006 06:12 PM
slackware post install nicole_jeff Slackware 2 05-23-2004 06:06 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 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