Rebuiding the latest Slackware Linux release from it's sources. It's is posible?
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Not really. An common method used by false OSS companies/solutions is to present sources with no value for the current release.
In fact, is commonly used also by some Linux distributions to "protect" their IP.
In fact, we have Closed Source, Open Source AND False Open Source.
You are now reverting to false accusations and insults.
Slackware can be built from scratch, using only the sources available in the Slackware source tree. That is how I rebuilt Slackware for the x86_64 architecture, and in the process I fixed up the SlackBuilds so that it became even easier to build for multiple architectures using one and the same source.
There is no master build script for Slackware. This distro is hand-crafted, and many packages are built several times, so that they can pick up functionality from packages that were not available during the first build.
Actually, I have a GPL question relating to this topic.
Now, the way I understand it, the GPL states that if your software is distibuted, then any changes you make as well as what is necessary to build those changes must be made available to those who request it..
If you only modify the software internally and don't release it, then there is no requirement to release or make available your changes.
To quote from the GPL 2.0
Quote:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.
Would the slackware build scripts not come under "the scripts used to control compilation"?
edit: I posted this before I noticed Alien Bob's reply.
I am curious though, if there is no master build script or anything, why did Alien Bob refuse to give LuckyCyborg the information he asked for relating to the slackware build process?
I am curious though, if there is no master build script or anything, why did Alien Bob refuse to give LuckyCyborg the information he asked for relating to the slackware build process?
Look, here's the final answer: Yes, it's possible, and you can do it if you want, all the sources and slackbuilds are there, and that's pretty much all you need, so do it and shut up already.
Look, here's the final answer: Yes, it's possible, and you can do it if you want, all the sources and slackbuilds are there, and that's pretty much all you need, so do it and shut up already.
But there is no point answering a disingenuous question intended only to create conflict... which in my opinion was the case all along.
The accusation that Slackware == M$ shows that clearly.
All arguments that follow, though they contain truth in themselves, simply feed a contrived conflict that does not otherwise exist.
However, in our case... we talk about an (Linux) operating system. IF Slackware Linux is not able to rebuild itself, it's bad, very bad. Because that seem that Slackware is not really OpenSource and can be sued for Infringement of GPL.
Citations and exact quotes needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyCyborg
Not really. An common method used by false OSS companies/solutions is to present sources with no value for the current release.
In fact, is commonly used also by some Linux distributions to "protect" their IP.
In fact, we have Closed Source, Open Source AND False Open Source.
But there is no point answering a disingenuous question intended only to create conflict... which in my opinion was the case all along.
The accusation that Slackware == M$ shows that clearly.
All arguments that follow, though they contain truth in themselves, simply feed a contrived conflict that does not otherwise exist.
Peace Slackers...
My question was asked in the thread title: I want to rebuild entire Slackware Linux Operating System to a slightly modified target (ie i686). The question is: It's possible? Or we have an case of False Open Source?
Read the last few posts of the thread dugan linked to, which is where this discussion began.
Well, I'd say he didn't provide anything because LuckyCyborg is a bigger dickhead than I am. (Which is no mean feat, since I picked a variant of dickhead for my LQ id.)
My question is: The Slackware Linux sources is published at latest version?
To answer the question, YES, the scripts and sources in /sources are the same ones used to build the packages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyCyborg
imagine that the KDE-3.5.10 sources is presented as KDE-4.4.3 sources. Is common used today
Not the case with Slackware. And if you want to claim that this is a common practice, you need to prove it. Links please.
There is no such thing as "false open source" (a term you made up), the GPL has no "rebuild itself" clause (which you made up), and presenting source code as anything other than what it is is not a common practise (you made that up), It was not nice of you to fabricate things like this.
This package can't be compiled (today) without additional patches in the latest Slackware, today... This package is awful for you, because kill your CD/DWD access in the best case...
There is no such thing as "false open source" (a term you made up), the GPL has no "rebuild itself" clause (which you made up), and presenting source code as anything other than what it is is not a common practise (you made that up), It was not nice of you to fabricate things like this.
Well, we talk about of entire operating system. In the awful case, it should be able to rebuild itself, if the published sources is right (and latest)...
That's is Open Source for an Operating System: you are able to rebuild everything itself. Or the thing is NOT an Open Source Operating System.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
