I've played around with Robby's xfce-4.8 pre-release packages. If Slackware 13.2 is around the corner, xfce-4.8 won't make it in. There are also lots of new deps for 4.8, which could slow its incorporation in Slackware, even if xfce-4.8 is finalized.

3 members found this post helpful.

Some of the dependencies for XFCE 4.8 (udisks, upower) are also requirements for KDE 4.6. This is the reason why you should not expect either XFCE 4.8 or KDE 4.6 in the next stable release of Slackware.
Getting rid of HAL in favour of udisks is not an option at this moment in time, the new framework will require some more maturing before being considered for inclusion into Slackware. Not all applications have adapted to an existence without HAL.

Eric

1 members found this post helpful.

So udisks and hal are incapable of peacefully co-existing?

They can co-exist. But I do not want to make Slackware even more complex by adding yet another hardware configuration daemon. The HAL developers declared HAL dead and re-wrote it as DeviceKit (and later that became udisks because they can not make their minds up). When there is sufficient support for udisks and upower so that HAL can be removed safely, then they can be added. At this moment in time, there is still software that depends on HAL - it's just premature to act. In the meantime, the udisks/upower and friends will be available from my own and Robby Workman's private repositories and kept out of Slackware.

At the moment, KDE 4.5.4 as found in Slackware-current is more stable than KDE 4.6 (even though the latter is still in release candidate stage) and I'd like to keep 4.5.4 when the next Slackware shipps. Of course, there is functionality in the newer KDE release that we do not currently have, but the same holds true for any other software. That in itself should not be a reason to upgrade a package in Slackware. Slackware is already pushed hard enough that it is not easy to maintain a stable distro.

Eric

I guess the question I'm asking then is why the push? Does any particular urgency attach to the next release? Please don't think I'm being snarky here; I'm genuinely curious to know how and why these decisions are made. Bear in mind I'm a relatively recent convert from Debian-land... to me it seems like Slackware 13.1 just came out. It's only like eight months old or so.

Another point of curiosity here: how much stuff is out there that has to transition from Hal before it can be jettisoned altogether?

The push is an outside one. The course of the desktop is largely dictated by those with money. Redhat, IBM, Intel, Novell are the ones who determine what new software is going to be written to deal with the issues they (and their customers) have.

This money-backed development effort is relentless and puts a tremendous stress on those who develop free software in their spare time. The changes being made to the guts of the Linux disros are increasingly intrusive, non-compatible and often released too fast, so that we end up with less stability. And are confronted with ever more free applications that are unable to keep up with the changes that require them to re-write or worse, re-design their software.

The result is what we have been seeing the past few years where none of the major distros have been able to deliver truely stable releases. Something will always be broken for part of the users' hardware. As a distro maintainer you either need to employ a lot of people to iron out the bugs (like Redhat or Ubuntu do), or depend on a large community of volunteers to maintain individual subsystems of the distro (like Debian, Gentoo). But Slackware has a small team, and this is by design. To keep the resulting distro lean, and stable, is harder than ever.

Eric

3 members found this post helpful.

Alien, I think what 2handband was asking is why not wait for the transition from hal to udisks to be fully complete before releasing 13.2? And is there a particular 'reason' or motivation for a 13.2 release in the near future?

Actually I think I know (part of) the answer: the upgrade to KDE 4.5 and the move to a new X.org. But it would be interesting to hear your explanation.

It should be quite clear that not everybody in the world wants to run slackware-current on his or her computers.
So every once in a while, a new Slackware release will have to see the light so that those who demand a stable reliable system can finally upgrade and get the goodies.
The new X.Org, KDE, kernel, compilers and loads of application updates will appeal to people and there is no reason at all to keep them waiting another year just because a pack of less-than-competent developers can not get their act together.

And remember, there is only going to be Slackware as long as Pat Volkerding and family can make a living out of it. the sales of CD's and DVD's is about their only income (and it has to be shared with the people running the Slackware Store), and I can tell you, it is not a pot of gold at all.

Eric

4 members found this post helpful.

I assure you that if we waited for that, by then there would be something else to wait for.

4 members found this post helpful.

Well he did say he was coming from Debian which is probably why it seems like Slackware releases come out quickly. Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the wisdom of a new release. And apologies to 2handband if I misinterpreted your question!

No, you understood me correctly. And I'm not really questioning the wisdom either, just trying to get a better understanding of the way things are done. It just seems breathtakingly fast after years of running Debian stable, but Eric's explanation makes perfect sense to me.

While there's no single mindset for those of us who've grown addicted to Slackware, *I* appreciate Slackware's no-nonsense design (thanks, Pat) and "maturity of spirit" (for lack of a better phrase), and keeping new-and-improved gimmickry to a minimum over the years (thanks to Robby, Eric & others to work around a lot of *that.*)

My livelihood lives on 13.1 & Xfce. A second hd runs -current & KDE *only* up to where I don't see a lot of red flags in the forum, so I'm often 7 to 10 days behind the changelog everywhere except security. I save daily work diffs when I use -current to an external hd Just In Case. ;-)

Eric's totally on-the-mark about "major" distros (gotta put that in quotes) not releasing "truly stable releases" for quite some time. Give me (1) good design I can easily understand (2) security (3) transparency...and I'm happy. Which is why I prefer LILO, BSD-style init, the strength of no-dependency-resolution and the devs taking their valuable time *here* to explain (for example) the udisks/upower/hal issues succinctly for The Rest of Us. I really owe those guys more than just beer money & lip service (my #2 New Year's Resolution).

Running -current more than makes up for keeping Releases stable when "stable" really does mean *stable.* I'm sure the devs have days where they'd rather do anything but track yet another point release for this-or-that piece of software and see that it works. I prefer that "Slackware be Slackware" rather than mimic anything else. 13.2 should be "right" rather than soon-for-the-sake-of-being-soon.

And while I'm at it: nice tutorials, 2handband.

I would much rather they finish up on the 3rd edition of the Slackbook before coming out with anything else.

Greetz
FWIW I don't need any new and improved. When Slackware v13 came out with KDE v4 I seriously considered dropping back to v12.2 because although I beg, borrow and steal icons, applets and stuff from many WM/DEs I depend primarily on KDE and at first KDE v4 was a fail for me. More or less fortunately I stuck it out and tried the Alien releases of 4.5 and was finally rewarded with a KDE that performed well. There are now features that I would seriously miss if I had to give them up but v3.5.10 was and is so solid that I could do it without too much trouble since there are features I miss even more from v3.5.10 in all the v4's so far. Most will run OK with KDE3-Compat installed but the point is that KDE 3.5 is mature and solid and I've read there is a team continuing v3's development, so I'm not the only one.

For example I still hate it that I can't change an icon on a desktop link to a script without changing ALL script icons. I'd rather be able to ln -s or rt-clk and choose "Add Link..." to Application, URL, etc and the searchable run dialogue only partly makes up for that. I hate it that Kpackage has become a Synaptic clone where I can no longer see a complete path list of all installed files in every package at a glance or at all now just so newbs can see what's new they can install next. I don't hate it but I do resent it that Slax now has Pacman installed by default.

I sincerely hope that the Slackware Team realizes that the hardcore do not want Linux to become Free Windows nor Slackware to become another "also ran" that is just a variation on a theme, lately largely dictated by the *buntus.

For a long time now Slackware not only stands alone, but head and shoulders above all the other distros and I am not saying that lightly as some fanboy. I have spent months each on some 26 distros over the years and this box I am typing from has 3 on it. There is simply no substitute for Slackware since even some of the BSD's are bending to the herd. I will never forget how all the other distros scrambled a few years ago over a broken gcc release that Patrick refused to poison his system with.

So to The Team, at least from my POV, take your own sweet time and do it whenever it's done. I will continue to send donations as I can as long as Slackware stays true to that trust and design imperative. 12.2 is still better than most "new and improved" distros out now and we don't have to depend on some stupid repository to release their heavily patched kernel image to manage new hardware.

3 members found this post helpful.

Thanks, molhar!