I do run exactly those commands I posted. From 'man slackpkg':
Indeed, I forgot to post that 'slackpkg update gpg' is a one time command, as said in the manpage.

No, depends on what they are talking about.

Mom says do not climb on them monkey bars, you will fall and break your neck.
mom says that because she believes it is a bad thing to do so lie to the child to protect them?

what the hell is that? that can cause a child that will group up unsure about his or her surroundings. Where broken trust causes a paranoid personality. that former example is not far from that.

Kids can pick up on them things. The child plays on the monkey bars does not fall off and break his neck.

what are his findings? that mom is a liar. Broken trust can be a result of it.

I gave advice to the contrary in this post, so yes I have to test it. I said to just install the what was missing to see if that would fix it, if not then remove and start over (putting it shortly) then others came in and said, that sight cannot be trusted on the grounds that it has advertisements on it.

is that then to say that every web page that has advertisements on it cannot be trusted? if that where a truth then LQ falls into that category as well. Because it too has advertisements on it until one gets a "membership" to it.

so then would that mean that LQ cannot be trusted until one gets their own "membership'?

that is an illogical reason to base what one believes to be true all on the account of advertisements being displayed on their web page. That falls into the category of someone being prejudice. Even if it is based on experience. One bitten twice shy. this can cause a bias option, but to close ones mind completely to the unknown and say someone is dishonest and cannot be trusted all on the account of that person is using a web sight that puts up advertisements to pay for the sight. How can that turn one into thinking that anyone using that sight that places advertisements on it no longer warrant any kind of trust whatsoever?


So making sure I do not live in that type of mind set, yes I put things to the test.

Back to this test. knowing that just installing one piece of the puzzle that seemed to be missing would not break ones system, nor cause it to crash. at least not under normal circumstances. Which were in play at the time.

as you have stated in the first paragraph, and I am about to do. It is wireshark, and qt5 too can be put to question. everything can. To answer a question what process needs to take place before hand?


In how they compiled it before putting it up on the sight that should be put into question, not everything on that sight that can be installed on a operating system.

which does require testing to see what is causing the failure.

the quick way to get around off of that testing?

start from scratch so one knows exactly what is being done. But because I gave my advice knowing what I was talking about, and everyone contradicted me. I put it to the test, and I am about to do it again.

1. being excessive again?
2. Where does wisdom come from?
3. as pretty as that may sound in that last statement about learning from others mistakes. Have you even noticed how that is hardly ever applied and why?

Some people like to find out for themselves. THis post is a good example of it. how information was given out to shame that web sight to put into another head that "no do not use it. It cannot in no way be trusted all on the biases of just because it has advertisements on it.

If I was to say you cannot be trusted all on the bases of, just because you wear different shoes then me, that is the same line of thinking that is taking place there.


I've actually gotten away from that, that is called a learning process. I know how to install a (some Linux) systems better then some in here now. I got that part down pretty good. How did I do that? by repetition even taking that opportunity to try different install configurations. so yeah I used that to my advantage.

AND sometimes it is better to just reinstall the system then spend a week on trying to figure out how to fix something. If it is going to take you a week just to make one thing work, when you're at a point that the system cannot be used, and that one thing needs to be fixed before the system can be used again, yeah, I'd reinstall it.

lets see approx max time to install Slackware. under 20 minutes. how someone had their recovery part of it set up then determines how long it will take before they get their system back up and running set up like it was before it got screwed up.

If it is a newbeeie as one is termed, and this is their first time and they've messed it up and now they are in here asking how to fix this one little thing, and I see them still trying to fix this same thing a few days or week from when it was posted. Yeah, I think they could have reinstalled the system and moved on by now to learning Slack or whatever one they installed.

to me that is just wasting valuable time. Time that could be better spent doing something else. their are way too many variables to go into to cover that topic of, when should I just reinstall it.

if one keeps their 3rd party already compiles packages on hand then that reinstall part is not that big of a deal.

reinstall system
reestablish any config files that needed to be specially modded.
reinstall the 3rd party packages.
back up and running again.

the last two depends on what? or what then needs to be applied to that last two steps? the order in which they are done, and this can be done all in the same day, and still have time to do whatever....

as opposed to I've been down for a week now and I am still trying to figure out how to fix this one thing that is holding me up.


that is not to say one should not spend some time on trying to fix that something, but always and every time something happens? this is a case by case situation. I do not hold to a hard written way of thinking. that is too closed minded for me.

That is what it is isn't it. My option, is like my advice, just like your option is like your advice, it is given freely and can be taken freely, or not.

IN the case of this wireshark there was no real danger in what I suggested he do. so yeah. I rest my case.

( PS. I've actually used that sight before and installed system needed packages, the ones that are installed during the install of the system packages off of that sight before and never not once had any issues with it messing up my system on a count of it.)

Oh boy... where to start.

This is a poor example. It would be more like your mom telling you not to walk on the monkey bars when it is raining. Using monkey bars can have repercussions (using 3rd-party repos), but most people can use them without issue. However, when it is raining (mixing repos), the chance of hurting yourself rises substantially. It is still your choice to decide whether or not you want to do it, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is more likely to cause problems.

The fact the site uses advertisements has NOTHING to do with not recommending it. However, it is frustrating that the site owner is willing to profit off the work of others without their permission. The site owner chose to add ponces repo without asking for permission and thus is profiting off work that he doesn't have permission to use. That should be frowned upon and discouraged.

But as I said, this has NOTHING to do with the recommendation to not use the site. You completely ignored my actual reasoning for recommending users to not use that site. That is because it doesn't list dependencies and makes it really easy to accidentally use repos that may be incompatible. Users are not made aware of these possible issues and it has led many of them here and we have to try and fix their systems. If the user had decided to use just one repo, like slonly, then it's easy to see what packages are needed because that repo includes dependency information. However, that dependency information still isn't displayed on pkgs.net. On the other hand, ponce's repo does not do provide dependency information, so it adds substantial work to get that information and could still easily lead to mixed repos... as you did with your example.

You should work on your comprehension so you can understand that advertisements have nothing to do with trust. In fact, this whole thing has nothing to do with trust since the site owner isn't providing any original work other than listing repos. The trust is in the repos themselves, but packages from one repo do not take into account packages in another repo. This can lead to broken systems when one repo expects different dependencies than another repo. I've stated this a few times on this thread, but you seem to think we don't like the site because it has ads. Hopefully it'll finally sink in that including ads has nothing to do with recommending user not use the site.

How is the quick way to test this by installing programs one by one? ponce already mentions that it is based on SBo, so you *know* the required dependencies will be required. That includes qt5 and its dependencies. So, figuring out that the required dependencies are actually required by installing things one at a time to see if they're required is not the "quick way".

Yeah, nobody ever learns from other's mistakes. That's why we have changed many things in the world to try and prevent issues that have already happened. Sure, if you really want, you're more than welcome to continue making mistakes others have made, but to suggest others do the same should be discouraged.

I'm just going to ignore everything from here on out about when you mention the trust factor in regards to advertisements. I believe I've made my point clear about that.

So, you're now great at installing Slackware. Congratulations. But reinstalling isn't always an option, so you really should start learning how to troubleshoot things. Sure, if your tire goes flat on your car, you can replace the car... or you could learn how to fix and/or replace just the tire itself. It takes many hours for me to get my system set up properly after an install. This includes installing and configuring many different programs and services.

Try doing this on a mission critical company server. If you had to reinstall the OS every few weeks or months, I don't think you'd last long in that position. Plus learning how to troubleshoot things will *greatly* increase your knowledge of Linux and Slackware. Do you know how many times I've reinstalled Slackware due to a screwup? Maybe once or twice in my 15+ years of using it and that was back in my early days. Learning how to solve your problems rather than just replacing them makes a huge difference in your knowledge levels.

You're certainly able to give out your own advice, but be warned that if it can harm someone's system, someone might call you out on it and provide a different suggestion. That has happened with advice I've given and I learned from it.

You should know that it is a website not a websight.

no it is not a poor example, I have heard it used. it is a lie, there is no way the person telling the other one can know if they will for certain fall and break their neck all on the account of them playing on the monkey bars.

you adding to the example is you doing what to try and justify your stance on it. you are deviating from the truth in what was said in order to make me wrong and you right no matter what. what kind of person does that?

like stating the it will break your system is you use them packages on that sight all on the account of it has advertisements on it. what kind of proof is that?


You have no idea nor do I until they are tested. even if one fails it still does not mean that every package on that sight will fail all on the account of one package failed.

or that it WILL break your system if you use them packages on that sight,
not may but will. even if the advertisements for justification is removed.

words and their usages.

that is judging many by one actions. it is a prejudice stance and mind set that is being used there.



profit off of Linux. lets see here.. even the person that came up with this idea of free software said what? I still got to eat so how can I still put money in my pocket and still provided this GNU software open source and for free?

I know I will charge them money for support. because changes are no one will kow how to use it in the first place and I still got to eat and pay bills.

and who is to say that the poster of all of that is making the money it could be vary well the sight provider is using the advertisements to support the sight.

to incriminate or look poorly on someone that is having someone pay them so they can provide you with something free so what?

You are still getting it for free.

to provide without asking permission. I can get a fork off of Ponce sight without asking permissions, it is open source. and therefore he nor I nor anyone then taking from Pounce or anyone else that has open source and distributing it is in any kind of violation. Permission is not needed.

You should know that.


so that makes it a use at your own risk better know what you are doing or know how to find out situation. My example was merely me putting that sight to the test in only the issue of WireShark. first going to slackbuilds to get a complete list of deps and seeing the results of what I did, and still I am currently trying to get ponce qt5 installed off of his slackbuild off of his git repo that I cloned without his permission and am using on current. it has failed two times now.


I was reconminding to try nothing wrong with trying. knowing full well all the OP had to do was back out of it by removing same said package if it did not work. no dep's conflict.

this is after the fact and has no biases to the OP's question and what I suggested. therefore irrelevant to your case. I only suggest that he TRY it, nothing wrong with that. it would not have brought down his system.

I never said that. you're twisting my words. to come up with this..


you have something called a brain, and the ability to reason and use discernment to guild your actions. I know I do, so no I do not always believe everything everyone else tells me. that would be foolish. it could turn into the blind leading the blind only to fall into the pit.

do you see me in this post reconmending he re install his system or even preform a system-clean which would have put him back to square one with everything he or she may have had installed?

NO!

I actually said try installing the ONE thing that it was complaign about and see where that leaves him. a perfectly rational suggestion.

whereas everyone else was doing what?



therefore makeing that part of your statement MUTE and VOID

NO WHERE IN THIS POST DID I SUGGEST ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT DOWN HIS SYSTEM!
your point is MUTE and VOID!

I think those are binary package deps, mandatory means: the sources fail to compile without..
And wireshark-2.4.5 compiles and runs ok with just qt5 (which uses libinput and libxkbcommon, but can optionally be compiled with libwacom)
For the most part, it works without lua, gtk and geoIP, I've checked.

no, those are the mandatory dependencies needed to build a wireshark package as decided by the maintainers of wireshark and its dependencies on SBo: if you check for every script named above on SBo you can verify that.
they not necessarily are the minimal set needed, the maintainer might think that for a satisfying eperience with the software also some not strictly needed are instead to consider necessary, it's the maintainer call.

Well they may be highly recommended, but if it works, it works. Not here to argue, jut worried about the implications of the word used.

Nowhere did I say it *would* break your system... just that using it *can* lead to it. Just like my monkey bars example. This is all based on probability. It is *more likely* to cause you issues if you mix things from repos that aren't known to be compatible to each other.

Again, I did not say it *will* break your system. You really should try and figure out that I'm trying to minimize the possibilities of issues. If you don't wear your seatbelt, you aren't going to die, but it does increase your chances of dying if you get in an accident.

This has nothing to do with Linux and open source. Does the site owner pay for the additional bandwidth that is being directed to ponce's site since his repo is now listed on pkgs.net? No. This is the same as hotlinking images, which is frowned upon by most sites (other than those sites that specifically allow it, like imgur).

You are certainly free to fork ponce's work, but for all you know, ponce's website could be hosted on a server that has limited bandwidth and may even have data caps. The pkgs.net owner should always contact the owners of the repo to find out if they're ok with their sites being listed.

You should know that.

Of course it is a "use at your own risk". That is the case with any information you get online. But you're adding possible work to OP by suggesting with the possibility that it won't work. Or you could suggest the proper way to do it by installing the required dependencies from the proper repos to ensure it works properly the first time.

How did you come to the conclusion this is irrelevant? Providing OP with the proper programs to install is not irrelevant.

This was based on you stating (especially the bolded part): "3. as pretty as that may sound in that last statement about learning from others mistakes. Have you even noticed how that is hardly ever applied and why?". You're basically stating that learning from mistakes is "hardly ever applied".

Of course I have a brain. I've learned a lot in my years using Linux and a lot from my years on this forum. I try and share that knowledge, including potential pitfalls. Of course you don't have to believe me and sometimes you really should test things out. But in this case, I've provided actual examples of what could happen if you mix repos. If you want to ignore that warning, that's certainly up to you, but it doesn't mean that my information is not correct. It absolutely is and that is a fact, not an opinion. No, things won't always break if you install things from multiple repos, in fact, it probably wouldn't happen very frequently. But it does increase the *possibility* quite a bit more than if you use the same repo.

You flat out ran into this issue by trying to get wireshark to work. It works perfectly fine when I build everything for myself and you're installing things from mixed repos and it doesn't work. Hmm... maybe you should use your brain and realize why I'm suggesting what I am.

You forget what we discuss quite frequently, don't you... I never said you recommended him to reinstall. What I said is that *you* frequently reinstall rather than try and fix problems. That isn't conducive to learning.

And that is certainly a way to do it, but it is a longer route and it still left you with a broken wireshark. So, how is this working out for you?

We were telling OP how to get it to work the first time rather than trying to install things manually... which still left you with wireshark not working.

It's null and void. But you didn't actually say what made my statement null and void.

No, but you did suggest a time waster and suggesting that pkgs.net is a good site to use can lead to packages not working as expected.

I am done with this rant get on with the OP issue, and no I did not read that post above yet.

I muted it instead it is my prerogative, MUTE in lue of NULLifing it.

to shut it up. because I did not personally accuse you of anything I only stated incidences and not names.

therefore the saying " if the shoe fits wear it' then comes into play.

You're free to make up your own phrases, but when they don't make sense, you might get called out on them. Mute and void is not something people normally hear. The phrase is null and void. But you still never stated how it was "mute" and void.

You stated it when replying to me:

...implying it is something I said, which I never did. You especially emphasized "WILL" implying it was stated somewhere here that using it would break your system, which never happened. In that case, you were putting words in someone's mouth when they were never actually stated.

I have no idea why you think this saying comes into play. Maybe it makes sense in your head, but you didn't write enough for it to make sense on the screen.

==============================

OP has all the information they need to install wireshark if they ignore your posts (otherwise they'll end up right back where they started with wireshark not starting, except this time they'll have more packages installed). I think that says enough...

by your admittance that it is null and void not mute and void is you showing me you know exactly what i meant by it.

I have no more interest in this discussion it is void and NULL or NULL and VOID or MUTED, this is just turning into a pissing contest.

one package, yea ok, if that is suppose to bruise my ego it's not working. I only suggest that he try installing the one missing dep,if that does not work, well it is in my post, in lue of preforming a clean-system then start over, where he'd end up having to re install everything that is 3rd party, because sometimes that is all that needs to be done. research that yourself. have a nice week end.

False. Just because I know what phrase you were intending to use doesn't mean I know *why* you were wanting to use it.

I don't care if it bruises your ego or not. It wasn't my intention to do so, but I wasn't trying to not do it either.

Suggesting OP only install portaudio (and saying it should work[1]) without telling them that there were many other required dependencies will likely lead to frustration when they install portaudio and wireshark still doesn't work. It is obvious that they weren't familiar with dependencies in Slackware or how ponce's repo worked. That is why I provided that information. I explained why pkgs.net can be problematic, quoted ponce's readme stating that all packages are based off SBo and have the same dependencies, then I provided the dependencies from SBo. This should allow OP to get a better idea of how to properly fix this issue rather than the shotgun approach of throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks. You just end up with a mess...

1 members found this post helpful.

that is from post 6, where he was already given information, so why do I have to repeat what a someone else already said?

So you've whittled it down to just this now I see. Now lets see where your mind is at on this matter.

Taking everything out of context to try and prove your case against me. What are you a Protest-ant? What can give explanation to your way of thinking?

Lets put everything I said back together like it was given, then take a look at it.

Already been given a list to work off of.
what list do you think I am referencing?
yours in post #4.

removed a lot of it didn't you? that there is a lot of information to take in before using any or all of it, if at all. No where in any part of the world is it written one HAS to take any part of that suggestion, or all of it. The burden falls upon the receiver not the giver, to use all of it, part of it, or none of it whatsoever.

You pull out a piece of it that you think shows fault in what I did, then you push it in my face and hold it up for all to see and say look at this man he is guilty! I show you my proof.

even that part of what I said that you are using there is no fault within it. Because of the way I worded it.

You, bassmadrigal, removing all of what you did from all of what I said just to try and lay some kind of proof that I am in error of what I did.

Not even taking into consideration the use of the words in that part you took out of context to use against me to try and prove your believe against me that I am wrong in what I did.

should, and could are not, shall, or, will which all have a different meaning.

you try to twist my words I use, even in your own head, to keep you believing I am guilty of something I am not, as well as try to prove to others what you believe about me. By removing most of what I said to try and make a case against me.

you are a dishonest man in all of your honesty.
You show signs of rigged thinking, and are letting your pride get the best of you. Not taking everything into consideration, Only removing the parts you think you can use to try and prove what you came to believe using a closed mined way of thinking. That only causes you to show your faults more then your virtues.

A tree is known by its fruit.

As an observation, if a post contains the word 'you', and if the word 'you' doesn't refer to the original poster, then the post probably isn't solving a Slackware problem.