In the time I've spent working on other distros, it doesn't matter their build environment, or that they sign their packages. There are certain maintainers that create sucky binary packages. It quickly ruins my trust of a distro, even when said maintainer just works on a few packages, since they let that person in. Eric is right, it always ends up having to trust the person on quality.
So I now know to avoid this community maintained distro rage, even more so now, even when it's not something I ever really had to spend much time in. This is coming from someone used to the quality of slackware for 15 years now :) In SBo, you can't necessarily prevent poor choices in packaging, but at least the packaging is one step moved back in the process from failing you. Now you get to decided your fate :) So to go an SBo-like community binary package delivery program seems a bit unnecessary, and contrary to its goals. There are still plenty of people that provide packages in Slackware? Do we need another one? |
A person can earn trust and not be trustworthy. It could all be apart of some master plan to compromise people's systems.
I bet Panagiotis' stuff is fine. I like the current Slackbuilds setup. If a binary file is suspect then the original source could be suspect as well. I doubt people are reviewing the source of every program/lib out there. People don't have a chance to review the code of commercial software that installs all kinds of stuff to protect itself and phones home daily. |
There are already things like palemoon and rar in SBo that link to binary packages instead of source.
Should be separated and tagged SlackRepack instead of SlackBuild as they appear to build something, but aren't building anything. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have to admit, I begin to feel tired by the stubbornness I see in this community. It boils down to the following: someone wants to provide a packaged alternative to SBo. Why would anyone actively be against that? |
Quote:
Most people here appreciate precise language, and are offput by subtle innuendo or emotional appeal. The Parent poster Daedra asked for opinions and opinions were offered. That's all that's going on here. Why not let SBo do its thing, and let SlackOnly do its thing and slacky.eu and the others do their thing, and not worry about it!?! The thing that bothers me is somebody coming along (not you per se!) stating that some group or other should change the way they do things such as SBo start to offer binaries in the main. Not only is it an affront to the wonderful and generous work the SBo people do, but it speaks very ill IMHO in regards to those asking for that change. It speaks of an intrinsic selfishness which IMHO is the main problem we humans have on this planet! |
I don't think the question actually was "can the SBo team start providing binary packages". The wonderful thing about compartmentalization is that another team can build a piece of infrastructure (binary package repository) on top of a lower-level piece (SBo scripts). The SBo team does not have to be involved in this at all. Exactly like slackonly.com is doing in fact.
Having both allows some people to use just the SBo scripts (because they do not trust a foreign repository or like compiling better for whatever reason) while others will happily use the binary package repository because it is convenient. If you trust the person or team who provides packages, then there is nothing to fuss about, you just use those packages. I did not say or imply that I do not trust the team behind slackonly.com. The kind of trust I was talking about when I mentioned "web of trust" is not only trust in the benevolence of the team (are they secretly injecting malicious code or not) but also a trust in the quality of the packages (will they break my computer when I install them) and in the consistency of the team (will they still be providing an up to date package repository in one year from now). Building that web of trust will allows one to make a decision about use/skip quickly. So I would never be against such a repository, why should I? Some people will profit from having it available. And if someone is willing to spend time, money and resources to build and maintain such a repository for the community to use, that can only be applauded. It is irrelevant whether I would actually use those packages, as long as you trust these guys. Solarfields, my example was not implying that I would suddenly have less trust in your packages. It was an example of how interactions contribute to building trust. But... when someone says something I don't like then that does not mean the statement was false or incorrect, it's just me that took offense. I might find you a less likable guy perhaps, but it would not change the respect that I would have for your work. I may not have written such a coherent post, but it is late and I am tired. |
Not only No! but Hell No! Think about it.... then ask yourself "to what advantage and at what cost?" The only advantage OP noted was "more people" but really what that means is "more lazy, ignorant people". If you doubt this check out even fundamental questions asked on Mate, Ubuntu, etc. It's like the blind leading the blind. Slackware attracts people who are serious about the nuts and bolts. Why diminish that by appealing to lowest common denominator and become yet another "also ran"?
|
Quote:
(However, I believe it is appropriate to judge the choices of those who control the distributions and major projects, and I disagree with pretty much every significant decision Canonical has made since I started using Linux 5 years ago. But I digress -- I'm getting too far off-topic.) |
Quote:
There are certainly plenty of knowledgeable people on the forums of those distributions helping newbies out, just like there is here, so enorbet's worries seem to me to be worrying about absolutely nothing. Plus, the newbies that get helped will eventually learn enough not to be "blind", as he called them. |
If you add a "Download package" button you'll need to add an even bigger "Download package and all dependencies" button
Maybe even modify installpkg that so that giving it a package name also makes it hunt for dependencies or in lieu of that just make it try to install anything that looks vaguely package-ish Slightly tongue in cheek but there's only so far you can take the hand-holding. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sorry for being blunt; I really do agree with you, but your point wasn't pointing in the right direction :P |
Quote:
So I say IMHO SBO keep up the good work and if there is anyone willing to build all those packages please do so. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 AM. |