Building packages vs Binary
 

Is it better to build packages or simply slackbuilds binaries. (The convenient way)... I have trust issues. But as far as performance goes just wanted some opinions on this.

I don't understand the question.

My guess on what you're asking is this: if you want to build packages for Slackware and distribute them, is it better to to distribute the binaries or the SlackBuild scripts?

If that's what you're asking, my answer is this. You always distribute the SlackBuild scripts. Distributing the binaries in addition to the SlackBuild scripts would be appreciated, but it's not mandatory.

My bad I meant "Build packages from source". Is it worth the hassle or is slackbuilds good enough?

The SlackBuild should be doing the exact same thing you'd be doing if you were building a package from a source tarball. If it's not, then you can edit the SlackBuild.

And if you have "trust issues", you can read the SlackBuild.

OK thanks I thought the slackbuilds were prebuilt binaries instead of source. So its just a script that builds it for you on your system is what you are saying.

Yes.

There are probably other docs by now (I haven't been keeping up with SlackDocs), but here's a good primer:

http://slackbuilds.org/howto/

@J.D. (a.k.a. Mercury305): 90%+ of all SlackBuilds do build from source and then package. However you will find a handful of SlackBuild scripts that just repackage a binary. The most common reason for SlackBuilds doing this is because the software is proprietary and the source code is unavailable (e.g. Chrome [unlike Chromium it includes some proprietary parts] and Opera). Other times people make SlackBuilds that repackage binaries because they are time consuming or require lots of resources to build (e.g. Firefox with PGO).

They are scripts that automate:

• Unpacking the source (or precompiled binary)
• Building the software (or reorganising it in the case of precompiled software)
• Packaging the result into Slackware's native package format

SlackBuilds are often preferred to binary packages, particularly when you getting some of your software from unknown or not fully trusted sites of people. It gives you the convenience of being able to use native packing tools but allows you to review what is being done to make the package.

In the case of SlackBuilds.org most here would trust them to serve binaries but hosting a bunch of build scripts takes up less space, allows the user to tweak things and also learn something along the way.

OK that makes more sense.