+1

Honestly, I have been trying out slpkg, but I found that these so called package managers don't build things the way I want, so I build everything manually. The only real benefit for me that slpkg does is gather the dependencies and present them to me in a build order that I can follow. I don't have a lot of packages that I need to build so that way just works for me.

I never said anything about "package managers" or "added automation" spoiling anything. This is Linux, you can do what you want.

There is a good discussion about package management and the pros and cons (starting with a request that I made for slpkg):
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post5501772

indeed may I add that...

Creating administration tools for Slackware has always been a dilemma between automating, and just "helping".

Dependency processing is a good example of a thing that shouldn't be automated : even on very sophisticated package management systems (think about operating systems with more than 1000 developers) : dependency automation is not fully reliable. On Slackware (which is not really the typical "family system", although all my family use it) : providing the list of dependencies for a given package may "help the user" , but auto-installing/removing deps may "kill the system".

Slackware is not the kind of system where the user has to be able to do things without understanding what he does.

Slackware is perfect as it is with its sort of "steam-punk" spirit. There are plenty of other Linux Distributions for those who don't want to understand Linux.

Just my 2 cents
jp

1 members found this post helpful.

No need to reopen this discussion in another thread, I think, especially in a [SOLVED] one.

Thank you Jean-Philippe.

PS: that was my last post in LQ. Bye everyone and thanks for all your help.

maybe no need, but maybe "lot of fun" ... Linux users are like gremlins, never give em food after midnight and never, never : tell em a thing is not needed if you really don't want it to be done

Before I begin let me attempt to make it clear that I hold no grudges against people for doing things their way. OTOH people who are somehow offended by others' alterations make no sense to me, although I may from time to time be guilty of "tsk tsk... why install Slack in the first place if you're going to make it into something it is not while so many other distros are out there that already do that" similar to my initial reaction to the fellow who posted a thread here recently about building Slackware with systemd in it. Since the number of distros already using systemd substantially outnumbers those that don't. it seems futile like "bringing coals to Newcastle" to me but then I consider that it may have been completely on a lark or very seriously exploring for real, not mere speculation just how much actual negative impact it does have

Just for thoroughness and clarity. I think that people who disparage automated dependency resolving systems (myself included) are taking a system-wide view in that every such distro I have experience with, locations (Directory structure) and filenames of certain kinds must be altered to accommodate automated dependency resolving while attempting to remain vanilla. Some distros have resorted to great alterations while others take a milder approach. The bottom line is that it is a compromise an the phrase "slightly pregnant" comes to mind. I have extreme respect for all Slackware devs (and of course especially Patrick) for managing to provide support for such wide-ranging uses while "sticking to their guns" and demanding of themselves such uncompromising high standards. With the absence of automated dependency resolving in Slackware the system is sacrosanct and never deeply at risk. Adding it creates system-wide alterations that make the System vulnerable. No matter how slight the tradeoffs are not worth the risk, to me, and therefore I consider that "spoiled". Given that for a definition, if that risk is worth it to you, then your choice is perfectly valid and deserving of respect.

1 members found this post helpful.

Yes, and this is "part" of the stability/security problem big "familly OS" have.

And thus : this is "part" of the reason why Slackware is reliable (between other things like good design, kifs, and the fact that you have to be more skilled to use it)

jp

You are right. Sorry. I was referring to previous posts.

@ enorbert,
Great explanation.

Thanks for the flowers, George.

You're not a real member of LQ if you didn't rage-quit at least once.

1 members found this post helpful.

Crap... guess I'm not one

why are you leaving ?

Well, I use Slackware as a hobby. Many of tools which I need for my work (remote sensing, GIS, ecological and statistical analysis tool, etc) don't have good counterparts in Linux ecosystem. Using Linux and specially Slackware is a big opportunity for me to learn new things about computer and improve my skills (if I have any). But, in two past years I found out that Slackware forum is not a good place for such a user.

Honestly the narcissism which flows in slackware community is a big drawback for newbies and non-specialist to put their opinions and share their understandings. Don't get me wrong, Slackware community is full of open mind, knowledgeable gurus who always willing to help others. I'm talking about those immature computer geeks who think by sitting in front of systems and writing few scripts they have sent another Apolo to moon.

Of coarse, I will be remain as a Slackware user and I will read all of your valuable posts but, I'd better be quiet and absorb the knowledge. I strongly advice other non-specialist to do the same.