LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
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 05-21-2005, 05:58 PM   #1
hirts123
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: U.S.A
Distribution: Slackware, Windows
Posts: 84

Rep: Reputation: 15
setting up new slackware system


what is the best way to find and install software on slackware 10
 
Old 05-21-2005, 06:02 PM   #2
Kenji Miyamoto
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: Mandrake 10.1; Fedora Core 3; FreeBSD 5.3; Slackware 10.1 (2.6.10);
Posts: 234

Rep: Reputation: 30
I'd just go download the Linux source from the site of the program you're looking for, unzip it, move it to the /usr/src directory, then do these in order and in the directory you moved it to:
Code:
# ./configure
# make
# make install
It's nearly the same as any UNIX system.
 
Old 05-21-2005, 06:06 PM   #3
hirts123
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: U.S.A
Distribution: Slackware, Windows
Posts: 84

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
yeah

thanks alot .
 
Old 05-21-2005, 06:15 PM   #4
xushi
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 1,288

Rep: Reputation: 45
That is not the best way to install software in a Slackware system. Its better to use packages. Either create your own, or download official/unofficial ones. This enhances upgradability, stability, and so on.

To do it yourself, either use the pkgbuild script documented in these threads, or checkinstall..

to download ready made packages, either do it manually by downloading them and using installpkg mypackage.tgz or use a program which will automate it for you, like swaret or slapt-get.

Official repository is found in slackware.com
Unofficial repo: www.linuxpackages.net
 
Old 05-21-2005, 06:22 PM   #5
Kenji Miyamoto
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: Mandrake 10.1; Fedora Core 3; FreeBSD 5.3; Slackware 10.1 (2.6.10);
Posts: 234

Rep: Reputation: 30
Is there a way to use Slackware packages to compile on your system, like FreeBSD Ports? Also, if you upgrade to the 2.6 kernel, do you have to upgrade X? If so, how would you upgrade?

The reason I like to compile specifically for my system is that with Yum in Fedora Core the system hangs during certain tasks. I never experienced these things in FreeBSD, where I only compiled Ports.
 
Old 05-21-2005, 06:27 PM   #6
speel
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: queens , nyc
Distribution: Slackware , Ubuntu
Posts: 349

Rep: Reputation: 30
www.linuxpackages.net then once you download the package you want su to root then pkgtool
 
Old 05-21-2005, 08:19 PM   #7
MS3FGX
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 5,852

Rep: Reputation: 351Reputation: 351Reputation: 351Reputation: 351
Quote:
That is not the best way to install software in a Slackware system. Its better to use packages. Either create your own, or download official/unofficial ones. This enhances upgradability, stability, and so on.
I don't quite understand your logic here.

It seems you are slapping the face of accepted practice here, compiling from source has always been the preferred method of software installation for a number of reasons for about as long as people have been running Linux on their personal machines

Ignoring for the time being the fact that compiling on the machine itself will generally result in a better optimized program (assuming your CPU is different then the one the package was compiled for), compiling from source will help with any dependency issues, since the software will check the environment before compiling and inform the user if there is a missing software component, or environment problem.

With a lack of dependency information in official Slackware packages, this can be a very useful piece of information.

It seems to me that their is no clear benefit at all from installing from packages, other than it is easier and faster.

Any well put together source package is going to have a make target for "uninstall" so removing the software shouldn't be a problem.

Plus compiling the software for your specific machine could only enhance stability, not lower it. A binary that is optimized for your particular CPU is going to be better than a generic i386 binary any day.

And of course, when installing from source, you are generally able to pass arguments to the makefile that will compile the program to your needs. Why include support for features you will never use? With a package, you are likely going to get everything compiled in, resulting in more bloat on your system.

I think the biggest problem I have with your comments is that you say it is better to use something like checkinstall than just installing it normally. All checkinstall does is run "make install" and capture the output. Why not just cut out the middle man and run "make install" yourself?
 
Old 05-21-2005, 08:34 PM   #8
gbhil
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: /dev/input/chair0
Distribution: Slackware, Gentoo, Vector, Roll-your-own-with-GNU binutils
Posts: 174

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by MS3FGX
All checkinstall does is run "make install" and capture the output. Why not just cut out the middle man and run "make install" yourself?
For myself, I use checkinstall so:
I can delete the source folder.
I can use flags and compile code on a fast dcc network, and scp the .tgz package to a slower box.

Other than that, I'll have to agree with you 100%. Often times the best package managment is none at all.
 
Old 05-21-2005, 10:27 PM   #9
MS3FGX
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 5,852

Rep: Reputation: 351Reputation: 351Reputation: 351Reputation: 351
Yes, I have done that myself.

I have a 133 MHz laptop, and compiling anything more complex then "Hello World" is not a pleasant experience, to say the least.

So for that, I compile on my main server, use checkinstall to create a package and transfer it over.

In that situation, or in fact, in any situation where you have a machine that isn't up to the task of compiling an application from source, then certainly packages are the way to go (perhaps the only way sometimes).
 
Old 05-21-2005, 10:29 PM   #10
shilo
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Stockton, CA
Distribution: Slackware 11 - kernel 2.6.19.1 - Dropline Gnome 2.16.2
Posts: 1,132

Rep: Reputation: 49
Quote:
Any well put together source package is going to have a make target for "uninstall" so removing the software shouldn't be a problem.
Having a make target for "uninstall" is nice for removing the given package. There are problems with it that are better handled by a packaging system, though. Say you install a program (let's call it ABC) with the traditional compiling method, foregoing making a package. You already have a(n) (unrelated) package installed (let's call it XYZ) that some files in common with program ABC. You later realize that you have no use for package XYZ. You remove package XYZ using the preferred method (pkgtool or removepkg). In the course of removing package XYZ, there is a check to make sure that none of the files being removed are included with another package. Since program ABC is not recognized by Slackware's package management system, the files that are common to both program ABC and package XYZ are removed, breaking program ABC.

Had program ABC been made into a package first (through the use of checkinstall, a build script, or any other method), this would not be a problem.

Packaging has other advantages, too. If you are working on an enterprise box, chances are you are not the only person who will ever admin the box. As such, it is nice to have a standard record of exactly what software is installed (and where). Even if you are the only person to ever admin the box, it is still very nice to have an easily readable system for identifying the installed software. With a package, you or anyone can easily tell what software is installed, which version, and to which location.
 
Old 05-21-2005, 10:51 PM   #11
MS3FGX
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 5,852

Rep: Reputation: 351Reputation: 351Reputation: 351Reputation: 351
I suppose in the event that two programs were sharing files, the package system would be at the advantage, but in all the time I have been running Linux on my home machines and work servers, I don't remember ever having that problem.

Source installs are by their nature very lean. I've never installed a program from source that also included all of the libraries or support files it needed. They were all expected to be their from the start, which is where the feared "dependency hell" comes in.

In which case, since the source install isn't going to include something like a shared system library or file, there would not be any problems with removing all the files installed with that program.

However, in the unlikely event that did happen, I will concede you would have a problem.
 
Old 05-22-2005, 04:06 AM   #12
cathectic
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: UK, Europe
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 761

Rep: Reputation: 34
The alternative to pure source install or checkinstall, is to write your own SlackBuild script and use that to automate building the program from source, stripping the binaries and/or libraries, gzipping man pages, adding documentation and preparing a package for install (decent Makefile's should also support DESTDIR for this purpose).

I also disagree this idea of a source install being 'leaner' - a proper package will reduce the size of the outputted binaries and/or libraries by stripping them first, and separate the uninstall procedure from being dependent on the source code.

(N.B. - I'm not saying that I disagree with using source, just the idea of installing the source directly without properly packaging it into a .tgz package first).

Last edited by cathectic; 05-22-2005 at 04:09 AM.
 
Old 05-22-2005, 10:00 AM   #13
Lallo
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2005
Distribution: Slackware 10.1
Posts: 24

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by cathectic
(N.B. - I'm not saying that I disagree with using source, just the idea of installing the source directly without properly packaging it into a .tgz package first).
I did never thinked of making a package after building from sources. So for you guys the best thing is to make a slackware package after having build from sources? This is quite interesting to me.
Do you think that following guidelines at http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto.p...erfect+Package
is enough?
Or where I can find more information about stripping binaries, checkinstall and so?
Thanks,
Lallo
 
Old 05-22-2005, 01:43 PM   #14
-0-
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: London uk
Distribution: Slack 10
Posts: 67

Rep: Reputation: 15
I very much reccomend you check out a few of the build scripts from the slacware source directory on your local slack mirror.


If you want to write a build script use a few of those for reccomendations.

I wrote a generic build script based off those, it was in a thread maybe a month back, if you do a seach you may find that of use too


Hope that helped

-0-
 
Old 05-28-2005, 02:20 PM   #15
hirts123
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: U.S.A
Distribution: Slackware, Windows
Posts: 84

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
yo

Quote:
Originally posted by Kenji Miyamoto
I'd just go download the Linux source from the site of the program you're looking for, unzip it, move it to the /usr/src directory, then do these in order and in the directory you moved it to:
Code:
# ./configure
# make
# make install
It's nearly the same as any UNIX system.


in what form would the source files be in and what should i do to unzip them?
could you please explain it a little more , cause reading everyones posts i think installing from source is the way i would want to install software on my machine
 
  


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
System time setting listensea Mandriva 4 05-16-2004 12:30 AM
Need help with setting up mail system WCprof Linux - Software 3 12-30-2003 12:12 PM
Help -- Setting System time by C/C++ eg_wwkaa Programming 1 09-20-2003 01:43 AM
Setting System clock linuxBill Linux - General 3 08-05-2003 08:07 AM
Setting the system time bughunter Linux - Newbie 2 04-20-2001 03:02 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 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