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

Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 05-23-2010, 10:06 AM   #1
LuckyCyborg
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Posts: 124

Rep: Reputation: 19
Smile Rebuiding the latest Slackware Linux release from it's sources. It's is posible?


Imagine that I'm an stupid and idiot Slackware(32) user, I use a Phenom II x6 as main system and secondary I have a little 8 x Phenom x4 (with all bells, ie 2GB RAM, 2x640GB RAID0, per system) cluster. I have the processing power to re-render the entire Avatar in a reasonable time, BUT!

I want to rebuild the entire Slackware Linux, at current/latest version, from a slighty different target: i586 or i686.

My question is: The Slackware Linux sources is published at latest version? I can rebuild the entire operating system from sources without other patches or upgrades/downgrades from the official packages versions?
 
Old 05-23-2010, 10:17 AM   #2
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,436

Rep: Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940
Not quite. Slackware packages tend to get updated piece by piece. It's not unusual to find a few of the Slackbuilds won't compile under the current release and the binaries you are running were actually inherited from a previous release. Usually all it takes is the odd patch or version bump to fix though.

Also, there are the odd few packages, such as the kernel-headers that don't have a slackbuild script.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 10:34 AM   #3
LuckyCyborg
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Posts: 124

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
Not quite. Slackware packages tend to get updated piece by piece. It's not unusual to find a few of the Slackbuilds won't compile under the current release and the binaries you are running were actually inherited from a previous release. Usually all it takes is the odd patch or version bump to fix though.

Also, there are the odd few packages, such as the kernel-headers that don't have a slackbuild script.
To understand that the current Slackware Linux is NOT able to succeed the old good thing "it's able to rebuild itself"? We can't rebuild the current Slackware Linux from it's sources?
 
Old 05-23-2010, 10:37 AM   #4
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 1,519

Rep: Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447
Everything you need to compile is found either within the source directory of the distribution or the patches/source directory. However, there is no indicator of the order in which the packages should be built and installed, as far as I know.

If you have that much horsepower, then I guess that you'll use distcc when you build stuff. You may want to look at https://launchpad.net/slackbot to get some ideas.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 10:48 AM   #5
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,436

Rep: Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940Reputation: 940
Nope. It's quite possible that Slackware current, or even a Release isn't capable of completely rebuilding itself.

Consider this:

A library + headers get updated in current but the library is binary compatible with prior releases so existing packages that make use of it don't need to be rebuilt. But if that library/headers are not source compatible with the previous version then you end up in this situation.

It's also not unusual to see software that won't compile on a newer gcc without change though surely if the upstream projects write standards compliant code, that sort of thing shouldn't happen.

It's just a side effect of the chosen development model.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 11:05 AM   #6
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
I say you consider using slackware64, because that will give way more performance benefit than going from i486 to i586 or i686, not to mention that slackware is actually mtune for i686, which makes the benefit even less.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 11:09 AM   #7
55020
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Yorks. W.R. 167397
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 388
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 367Reputation: 367Reputation: 367Reputation: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyCyborg View Post
Imagine that I'm an stupid and idiot Slackware(32) user, I use a Phenom II x6 as main system and secondary I have a little 8 x Phenom x4 (with all bells, ie 2GB RAM, 2x640GB RAID0, per system) cluster. I have the processing power to re-render the entire Avatar in a reasonable time, BUT! I want to rebuild the entire Slackware Linux
In photography, it's common to find that the people with the most expensive and sophisticated cameras are unable to take really good photographs. The most famous photographers will all tell you that the equipment is not as important as the talent and experience.

Similarly, in computing, sometimes the most powerful and expensive systems are correlated with a "stupid and idiot" owner. In fact, many of us use it as a heuristic.

The best advice for someone who is "stupid and idiot" is: do not attempt "to rebuild the entire Slackware Linux" until you are not "stupid and idiot". This advice is independent of the speed of the user's Turing machine.

Other people have answered "No" to your other question. The reason is, to avoid pointless work. The aim of Slackware is to provide a prebuilt set of binaries that reliably work together, not 'the old good thing "it's able to rebuild itself"'. (If that's what you want, see LFS, and follow the LFS mailing lists if you want to know how difficult it is.)

And additionally, the reason for dropping Gnome was...
 
Old 05-23-2010, 11:26 AM   #8
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,766

Rep: Reputation: 1467Reputation: 1467Reputation: 1467Reputation: 1467Reputation: 1467Reputation: 1467Reputation: 1467Reputation: 1467Reputation: 1467Reputation: 1467
For context, this is actually a spin-off of this discussion:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...221/page5.html
 
Old 05-23-2010, 11:40 AM   #9
LuckyCyborg
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Posts: 124

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by 55020 View Post
In photography, it's common to find that the people with the most expensive and sophisticated cameras are unable to take really good photographs. The most famous photographers will all tell you that the equipment is not as important as the talent and experience.

Similarly, in computing, sometimes the most powerful and expensive systems are correlated with a "stupid and idiot" owner. In fact, many of us use it as a heuristic.

The best advice for someone who is "stupid and idiot" is: do not attempt "to rebuild the entire Slackware Linux" until you are not "stupid and idiot". This advice is independent of the speed of the user's Turing machine.

Other people have answered "No" to your other question. The reason is, to avoid pointless work. The aim of Slackware is to provide a prebuilt set of binaries that reliably work together, not 'the old good thing "it's able to rebuild itself"'. (If that's what you want, see LFS, and follow the LFS mailing lists if you want to know how difficult it is.)

And additionally, the reason for dropping Gnome was...
Well, I think different... I said about Avatar. It's something like J.Cameron was shocked in a dream by a idea and few (hundred?) admins was able to transform his idea in a movie.

However, in our case... we talk about an (Linux) operating system. IF Slackware Linux is not able to rebuild itself, it's bad, very bad. Because that seem that Slackware is not really OpenSource and can be sued for Infringement of GPL.

It's something like Microsoft Corporation try to present the sources of Windows 97 SE as the sources of Windows Seven.

I think, in this case, if Slackware can't be rebuild from sources, can be considered at the same level of closed-source Microsoft Corporation solutions, using (barely) open-source software.

It's very important to preserve the "it's able to rebuild itself" in a open-source operating system. It's the guaranty of a true GPL operating system.

BTW. I'm Slackware user starting with version 2.0, the "stupid and idiot" was an expression.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 11:56 AM   #10
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 1,519

Rep: Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447
Quote:
IF Slackware Linux is not able to rebuild itself, it's bad, very bad. Because that seem that Slackware is not really OpenSource and can be sued for Infringement of GPL.
I don't believe that you know what you are talking about.

[edited for accuracy]

Last edited by Richard Cranium; 05-23-2010 at 12:03 PM.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 11:56 AM   #11
Josh000
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Slackware 13 64bit
Posts: 534

Rep: Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyCyborg View Post
It's very important to preserve the "it's able to rebuild itself" in a open-source operating system. It's the guaranty of a true GPL operating system.
That's crazy talk.

An open source system with the capability to rebuild itself is certainly nice, but it not any sort of requirement or measure of it being open source.



I do wonder though why in the original thread no answer was given about what tools or scripts the slackware team uses to build slackware. There may be no requirement to release that info or tools, but it would seem to be the right thing "in the spirit"....

Last edited by Josh000; 05-23-2010 at 12:01 PM.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 12:00 PM   #12
rmjohnso
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 294

Rep: Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyCyborg View Post
However, in our case... we talk about an (Linux) operating system. IF Slackware Linux is not able to rebuild itself, it's bad, very bad. Because that seem that Slackware is not really OpenSource and can be sued for Infringement of GPL.
I think you misunderstand what is meant by open source in this regard. I means that the code is public, and developers are free to modify it how they wish. There are no guarantees about compilation. If there were guarantees about compilation, half of the programs I try wouldn't be close to being called open source.

In reading your posts on the thread that dugan linked to, it seems to me that what you want is the build order for the Slackware packages. I believe Eric aka AlienBOB has already answered that question, which is that they don't release it. That doesn't mean you won't be able to recompile Slackware from source. It just means that it will be extremely difficult.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 12:01 PM   #13
LuckyCyborg
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Posts: 124

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh000 View Post
That's crazy talk.

An open source system with the capability to rebuild itself is certainly nice, but it not any sort of requirement or measure of it being open source.
Not really. An common method used by false OSS companies/solutions is to present sources with no value for the current release.

In fact, is commonly used also by some Linux distributions to "protect" their IP.

In fact, we have Closed Source, Open Source AND False Open Source.
 
Old 05-23-2010, 12:03 PM   #14
slackd
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Bhubaneswar, India
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, Windows
Posts: 260
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 60
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyCyborg View Post
I think, in this case, if Slackware can't be rebuild from sources, can be considered at the same level of closed-source Microsoft Corporation solutions, using (barely) open-source software.

It's very important to preserve the "it's able to rebuild itself" in a open-source operating system. It's the guaranty of a true GPL operating system.

BTW. I'm Slackware user starting with version 2.0, the "stupid and idiot" was an expression.
Slackware same level of closed source Miscro$oft, using (barely) open-source software. How could u?? how could u??
 
Old 05-23-2010, 12:21 PM   #15
LuckyCyborg
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Posts: 124

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackd View Post
Slackware same level of closed source Miscro$oft, using (barely) open-source software. How could u?? how could u??
Sorry, but that's the truth.

That method is named as "False Open-Source", i.e. imagine that the KDE-3.5.10 sources is presented as KDE-4.4.3 sources. Is common used today, and seems like that one of the "rats" it's called Slackware.
 
  


Closed Thread


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
Linux.conf.au: Latest Linux kernel release due early March DragonSlayer48DX Linux - News 0 01-18-2010 10:43 PM
Linux script to download the latest release of a sourceforge project? dennis123123 Linux - General 1 04-23-2009 11:44 PM
LXer: Latest CrossOver Release Supports Linux, Adds Mac LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-12-2007 07:54 PM
LXer: Foreseeing GNOME with the Latest Foresight Linux Release LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-07-2006 07:33 AM
LXer: Wind River Targets Mobile Handhelds and Telecommunications Equipment With the Latest Release of Its Commercial Grade Linux Platforms LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-31-2006 09:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.

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