No, no, no I was thinking more like Mac OS. 'tpid.

If you don't like the functionality of slackpkg, then you should create a patch that implements what you think is missing or dysfunctional. Sure, a 'gentler' approach with the newbies from time to time might benefit Slackware. BUT, you are coming here asking for change and are unwilling to put in any work. Then when you are dismissed you get mad.

It's quite an achievement, in a target-rich environment like slackpkg, to come up with two completely bogus 'recommendations'.

2 members found this post helpful.

Well let's take a step back for a second.

1. I've pointed out flaws in the PMS. A number of users have come here trying to defend what really are blatant weaknesses in the PMS. It's an extremely flawed and stupid attitude.
2. It is also a question of distro policy.
3. Modding the program would be best left to the author. But this is the least of the issue.

To be honest I have seen no logic in the policies proposed in a few (all) answers posted here.

If you disagree with what I have written here then let's go back and address the points again from top to bottom.

Let's face it, the attitude I sense from here and a general consensus of experience with SW is such that the PMS in this distro is nothing more than an aberration to keep users happy. If indeed that's the case best to rip it all out and be done with it.

Target-rich my arse. LOL

Type "mail" in a console or terminal as root and you will be able to read an explanation by Patrick Volkerding that I quote below:

Higher version number does mean not better. Granted.
The word up in upgrade means to wind something up. Not in this case.
Really I feel the correct way would be to remove the offending package and then reinstall the older package. The PMS makes this an easy task. However it escapes me that they want to be illogical by calling a downgrade an upgrade or an upgrade a downgrade. This example whilst true is only part of my initial proposition.

The reason why this works so easily is because there is no dependency resolution. It's an advantage in terms of the simplicity of the PMS is concerned. Now before the muppets get exicted and think I'm calling for dependency resolution, I'm not, this is just an example of reason why it works I'm giving,

The issue here is what you are creating with make tarxz-pkg is not a Slackware package. Just because it shares a similar directory structure does not make it a Slackware package. Slackware packages also contain an install/ directory that contains the package description and, optionally, a post-install script. As another poster mentioned, if it starts accepting tar.xz, it opens up the ability to confuse users who think they should be able to install a source archive, "because it is a tar.xz". In the earlier days of Slackware (well, maybe middle days, in the early 2000s), you'd occasionally see tgz source archives and there would be a lot of confusion why they couldn't install them. Luckily, most archives have moved away from that naming scheme, so it is much easier to distinguish Slackware packages from source archives. Let's not muddy that water again.

Plus, as Alien Bob pointed out, slackpkg isn't designed to work on single packages. It is designed to work with a repo. You set up a repo with the required metafiles and then you would point slackpkg to that.

slackpkg is designed to allow the user to keep their packages in sync with their chosen Slackware mirror. Slackware package updates aren't always newer versions... sometimes they're older. Hiding potential "updates" just because they're a lower version could break installs. As I said earlier, slackpkg is really only designed to sync your install to the chosen Slackware mirror. That can be done by upgrading to higher or lower version numbers than what's installed now.

Slackware's package management system consists of more than just slackpkg. In fact, slackpkg is a relatively recent addition (officially added in 12.2 back in 2008). The whole package management system is pkgtool, installpkg, upgradepkg, removepkg, explodepkg, makepkg, and finally, slackpkg. slackpkg's only job is to sync with a mirror, download the packages, "upgrade" it if it doesn't match what's on the system.

If you are wanting custom versions, you need to be utilizing slackpkg's blacklist. That is what it is designed for.

1. The "flaws" you've pointed out are not flaws and you only believe that they are due to not fully understanding what slackpkg's role is within Slackware's package management system.

3. This is sorely incorrect. Linux is based on combining work from multiple authors. In fact, slackpkg has been developed by many people. The Linux ecosystem works great because people are willing to make changes and submit those changes to the original authors. Why do you think patches are so prevalent with open source?

We've had this discussion elsewhere on the forum. Yes, it is true that "upgrade" may not be the best choice in words, but it was decided a long time ago, and I doubt any requests will get it to change. Simply put, you're upgrading the version installed with the version you want installed, regardless of what the version numbers are.

Again, you have an incomplete understanding of Slackware's package management system, since slackpkg is only a small portion of it and is only used to sync your computer with what's on the mirror. It doesn't care about version numbers.

1 members found this post helpful.

Will you please just read the Slackware information that's abundantly available, and get a proper understanding of how this distro works. You are going off on a tangent and you are making no sense at all. There are strict rules to Slackware package management, and you will have to accept them as leading if you want to keep using Slackware.
If Slackware is not for you then please move on as fast as you can. I am done with this stupid non-discussion that borders on trolling.

So you can not even read then... please check that picture again and this time, actually read and interpret the text . You'll see that the "dead" was not referring to Slackware but to you.

You're pointing the same thing and over and over again showing little credit to the problems in the PMS. What you're pointing out are really questions of policy.

So you want to draw a distinction between a SW package and a tar archive. Fine. Then don't call it a tar archive in the first place.

slackpkg syncs with the repo. Fine. But it is clearly having unintended consequences.

The moral here is fix these damn issues instead of coming back to me and trying to defend yourselves by discreditting me instead.

The moral here is rather that you are making us loosing our time ranting about the PMS that you just don't know well enough to use wisely.

But I could be wrong. Then, to have a chance that the fixes you deem necessary be applied, I suggest that you submit patches to the scripts in concern to correct them.

I feel like I've read this story before. Someone makes a thread giving well-meaning but misguided suggestions, then gets upset and starts throwing insults at Slackware when people tell him the suggestions are no good.

Anyway, I don't get why the PMS should happily try to install any archive you throw at it. That's a good way for people to screw up their systems. I suggest you look at the makepkg command if you want to turn a properly assembled directory into a Slackware package. That is its whole purpose.

gravitational and inertial mass?
Geez! and I just thought it was funny.
j