I just want to say that there is nothing wrong with suggesting patches from anywhere, whether that be Arch, Ubuntu, or some random fork off github. If software is broken, Pat does his best to get it fixed. While he may prefer to use vanilla sources without patches, sometimes that's impossible to keep a functional package.

However, Pat can't incorporate all the patches from Arch because not all will apply cleanly (different versions) and others wouldn't be needed in Slackware due to software differences (like systemd).

If you have specific patches you think would be beneficial to Slackware, please bring them up. This is how we make sure the next Slackware release is stable and rock solid. But we can't just pull all the patches from Arch into Slackware.

3 members found this post helpful.

> Sugeestion: -current: merge patches from archlinux

what I mean:
merge <verified & useful> patches from archlinux

why:
reuse other communities work, make slack more stable, may evolution to a half-rolling release for daily use for senior users
and of course, we could get a stable release sooner

why arch:
it has the most same principles with slack, most packages I saw was build from vanilla source, and their PKGBUILD is very helpful

next:
I never use slapt-get and will have a try to save me from the dependencies nightmare.

at the last:
sorry for my not clearly explained.

Slackware will never become what you seem to dream of. Try Fedora or Manjaro.

How do those patches become verified and useful? That requires someone to do that work and they have to compare the versions that archlinux uses versus those found in -current.

English does not appear to be your native tongue, so it is not a crime to be not clear. You just have to post more to explain what you meant so that we can understand it.

(I've been unclear in some, if not many, of my posts while being a native English [well, American English] speaker for almost 6 decades.)

I think most of us are satisfied with "release when ready".

2 members found this post helpful.

the best answer I got. and thanks to all of you.

BTW, I do not ask for anything, do not push anything, but just a suggestion. is this a mistake?

Making suggestions is not inherently a mistake, but you're inevitably going to take some heat with suggestions like "Why not merge all patches from Arch Linux into Slackware?". That's because it's not a technically coherent request (as bassmadrigal pointed out), but also it appears somewhat trollish (Alien Bob's take) in the form of an unreasonable/vague request with a "distro X is better* than distro Y" flavour.

But I wouldn't worry too much about it, if you identity some specific issues that need fixing then that's great.

* however you want to define "better" (faster, more stable, whatever).

Slackware and Arch are very different, Slackware doesn't even use systemd. Do you want systemd in Slackware too just because Arch has it? Having a specific feature request for -current is ok, there's even a very long forum thread about it in this forum, but I think it has to be coming from a practical need, not because you have that in Arch.

Pat is not opposed to this. He has repeatedly used patches from Arch, Debian, Gentoo, and many other distros over the years. Not to mention patches from projects themselves (if they hadn't done a release yet) and even patches that others or himself generate to fix issues.

Pat aims to have a stable release. But he also prefers to have vanilla, unpatched packages. If a patch is available that makes a program more stable, report it and I'm sure Pat will incorporate it unless it has some unintended side-effect.

I think the key thing that ruffled feathers here is you didn't specify what patches to use. Pat can't just grab all the patches from Arch and use them on Slackware. They may be for different versions of software or may be patches for things that aren't broke in Slackware (because of different software combinations). Also, many packages for Arch are in the AUR, which as far as I'm aware, are user generated like SBo. This means that they may not be as well tested as the core packages in Arch and any patches included may be unnecessary or not as stable as one would hope.

By all means, we want Slackware to be as stable as possible. If that means we use some patches from Arch, I'm sure Pat wouldn't have any issues with that. But if we were to pull in *all* the patches from Arch, I don't think it would help with stability unless Slackware just became an Arch clone (and nobody wants that... we like the diversity available in having many different Linux distros).

If you find any patches being used in Arch that fix issues in Slackware, be sure to report them on the "Requests for -current" thread.

Slackware is already using "verified & useful" patches that are right for Slackware.

If there are patches in particular that you feel should be applied and currently aren't, then you can post direct links to them. This has been pointed out to you many, many times.

Thank you very much for point my description error.


That is totally correct answer to me.
I'm not meaning "pull in *all* the patches from Arch".

for my last vboxvideo issue, I couldn'f found any certain patches but only know here is problem and there is ok.
I do everything *I can* but no result, then I came here for help/advise to do more test to resolve it.

I NEVER mention or meaning it.
I just talk about some patches.

You don't know what a "patch" is, do you.

Dlackware's mantra is a cliche acronym, Keep It Simple, Stupid. We have a another cliche acronym in the US called "The 6 "P" Rule - Pre Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Arch, being a rolling release does not adhere to that rule being a rolling release distro. We have another cliche that applies to such endeavors - "The only problem with being cutting edge is staying ahead of the blade". Rolling Releases are expected to break from time to time as paying dues for being as new (and as automated) as possible and regular maintenance is a given.

Slackware is all but uninterested in being cutting edge, opting instead for tried and true requiring almost no maintenance. In almost 20 years of using Slackware it has never, not once broken on me. I have broken it a time or two but because I initiated the action that broke it, and it was almost always a single action because I automate nothing at system level, I fixed my error immediately almost always in just a few minutes. To me that is the definition of "Stable" and "Low Maintenance".

If you really need the very latest (and who does and why would you?) then realize that comes at a cost and that cost is simple, maintenance-free reliability. There's another acronym coined by Robert Heinlein - TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Forgive the pun but everything is a "package deal".

1 members found this post helpful.