LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-09-2010, 10:19 AM   #61
Fred-1.2.13
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Distribution: Started with Slackware - 3.0 1995 Kernel 1.2.13 - Now Slackware Current. Also some FreeBSD.
Posts: 124

Rep: Reputation: 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cultist View Post
So, suppose I find PackageA.tar.gz on some random source site. I try to compile and install, but it requires packageB, packageC, packageD, and packageE as dependencies to work. Will it tell me this when I try to compile it, or will I have to dig around the site that I downloaded from and hope that it lists the required dependencies? Or can I just expect most tarballs to have dependencies listed inside? I've relied mostly on apt-get in Debian for my software, only compiled a few things and they've never required dependencies I didn't already have
In my experience (Slackware user since 1995) that is exactly how it works. If I try and compile something and it fails because of a missing library it will tell me, I then just go and find the library and install it first. Even with pre-compiled binaries, if I launch a program and it fails it always tells me what is missing. If I am in X and I try and launch a program and it does nothing, I simply flip over to the console I started X from and read the error message which will tell me what is missing.

Slackware is all I know and this is how I have always done it, never gave it much thought, thought this is how all distros worked.

Last edited by Fred-1.2.13; 06-09-2010 at 10:24 AM.
 
Old 06-10-2010, 03:26 AM   #62
AGer
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2007
Distribution: Slackware current
Posts: 136
Blog Entries: 22

Rep: Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cultist View Post
So, suppose I find PackageA.tar.gz on some random source site. I try to compile and install, but it requires packageB, packageC, packageD, and packageE as dependencies to work. Will it tell me this when I try to compile it, or will I have to dig around the site that I downloaded from and hope that it lists the required dependencies? Or can I just expect most tarballs to have dependencies listed inside? I've relied mostly on apt-get in Debian for my software, only compiled a few things and they've never required dependencies I didn't already have
"but it requires packageB, packageC, packageD, and packageE" This assumes there are packageB and packageC somewhere, which in turn assumes there is package management. In fact, it requires libraryA and libraryB. As discussed in other posts, with package management libraryA may come in packageA together with libraryA2, libraryA3, and other gig of potentially harmful stuff.

A good example I remember is Eclipse being dependent on few Mozilla libraries. When Mozilla upgraded Eclipse stopped working. Even though Eclipse has MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME handy for this very case, package management induced brain damage sent many people Google as reflected in forums. Distribution creativity in selecting packages for these libraries was amusing.

"as dependencies to work" Or as dependencies to build. Dependencies to work and dependencies to build from source may be different.

"will I have to dig around the site" Since it is "some random source site", everything is possible. However, you never have to dig since the dependencies will show themselves anyway. You may want to dig or just read what the site says upfront in order to save some effort.

"most tarballs to have dependencies listed inside" I guess yes. Dependencies are listed either directly in some readme or indirectly in configure. Read what configure tells you carefully since if something is missing then configure will try to exclude the code that uses it and still compile the rest. You get binaries with some missing functionality.

Some dependencies are harder to discover. For example, if an app loads some library dynamically and does not report it was not found then you have reduced functionality. For example, a media player may not want to emphasize its dependency on decss.

"I've relied mostly on apt-get in Debian" That is, you used work of Debian developers who created packages for apt-get. Did you notice how many packages are there readily available? This implies that there are either few people who create and maintain hundreds and hundreds of packages or lots and lots of people who create and maintain few packages each. In both cases package management cannot be very hard.

Finally, some software does not need any package management at all since it installs itself to opt or local nicely after download.
 
Old 06-10-2010, 12:58 PM   #63
dugan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 8,957

Rep: Reputation: 3844Reputation: 3844Reputation: 3844Reputation: 3844Reputation: 3844Reputation: 3844Reputation: 3844Reputation: 3844Reputation: 3844Reputation: 3844Reputation: 3844
The answer to the question in the subject is actually documented. After you install Slackware, you get an email the first time you log in as root. That email states the reason explicitly:

Quote:
Slackware is designed around the idea that the system should be a complete installation kept updated with any official patches. This avoids the mess of dependencies that some other Linux based GNU systems face.
Since you've used a dependency tracking package manager, you know that they become unstable once you add two unofficial repositories. You have no reason to believe that they'll remain consistent with each other, so you can expect the system to break at any time. This essentially limits you to using software from the official repositories. And let me tell you that once you've built a few of your own packages, no single repository will be good enough for you. If you have six unofficial repositories in your sources.list, then it means either a) you're lucky that you haven't run into problems yet, or b) you're doing more work to maintain that setup (e.g. with pinning) than you ever would with Slackware.

Last edited by dugan; 06-10-2010 at 01:03 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2010, 04:12 PM   #64
2handband
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota
Distribution: KaOS
Posts: 831

Rep: Reputation: 96
I'm going to weigh in here briefly. I've been using Slackware for all of about three days... and I've already decided to ditch Debian, which I've been using for about three years. After just three days of package management the Slackware way, I'll never use an automatic dependency resolution tool again. Slackware kicks *ss!
 
Old 06-10-2010, 04:39 PM   #65
samac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Westray, Orkney
Distribution: Linux Mint 17.1
Posts: 1,424

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
I've been using Slackware for about 6 years and decided to add a SalixOS repository and slapt-get/gslapt as an experiment. It lasted for about an hour. It was telling me that I had lame and several other packages installed from slackbuilds and Salix, just because they were the same version number, it would not let me delete the Salix version as it wasn't actually installed. If a package manager cannot identify what is installed how can it process instructions on it.

So in conclusion: Slackware has a great package manager that does the job and doesn't require dependency tracking. If Slackware or Slackbuild doesn't have a package I can always cherry pick from a variety of other trusted sources. I can even roll my own and deal with the dependencies on a case by case basis.

If dependency tracking package managers worked all the time I would use them. They make life easy and I like easy, however in my experience they eventually screw your system up. That is why I love Slackware because I know if it is broken it was almost certainly my fault.

samac
 
Old 06-11-2010, 07:38 AM   #66
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 5,814

Rep: Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974
Quote:
Originally Posted by samac View Post
If dependency tracking package managers worked all the time I would use them. They make life easy and I like easy, however in my experience they eventually screw your system up. That is why I love Slackware because I know if it is broken it was almost certainly my fault.

samac
Agreed. I've used several distros that have, in my opinion, good package management systems (Debian, Arch, FreeBSD). But, eventually they will usually fail. If something breaks on my Slackware systems it is easier to track down the root cause and repair the problem.
 
Old 06-11-2010, 07:44 AM   #67
posixculprit
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 136

Rep: Reputation: 42
I've used Arch, Debian, Gentoo and never had trouble with the package managers. Judging by the popularity of the 3 distributions, I would guess I'm not the only one. I've used Slackware in the past (in fact it was the only thing I had installed on my machines for over a year or so), I've moved on, and don't see myself going back any time soon.

P.S.: Before I get called a dick and what not, if I'm a dick, then so is everyone posting "installed Slackware, never gonna switch".
 
Old 06-11-2010, 07:53 AM   #68
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 5,814

Rep: Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974Reputation: 1974
Quote:
Originally Posted by posixculprit View Post
I've used Arch, Debian, Gentoo and never had trouble with the package managers. Judging by the popularity of the 3 distributions, I would guess I'm not the only one. I've used Slackware in the past (in fact it was the only thing I had installed on my machines for over a year or so), I've moved on, and don't see myself going back any time soon.

P.S.: Before I get called a dick and what not, if I'm a dick, then so is everyone posting "installed Slackware, never gonna switch".
I've moved on from Debian, Arch, and FreeBSD. However, I don't post on the forums of other distros and announce that fact. But, that is just me. I'm happy with Slackware.

Last edited by hitest; 06-11-2010 at 07:54 AM.
 
Old 06-11-2010, 08:06 AM   #69
posixculprit
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 136

Rep: Reputation: 42
Oh, I get it. So this forum is dedicated to threads in which Slackware users kiss eachother's asses and congratulate one another on their great taste in operating systems?

The 'problem' is some newbie users will input the right combination of keywords in a search engine, read this thread and think that Slackware is the best thing since rohypnol/chloroform and that all the other distributions are broken and only used by newbies who don't know any better. Whenever someone posts a 'pro-windows' thread (or a thread linking to an article claiming Windows "superiority" in any matter) quite a few fellow members bother to post "corrections" - even those fellow members who have moved on from Windows.

FUD is FUD and I'm doing my share to fight it. If you don't like it, start a Slackware-centric forum where Slackware users can continue to misinform one-another and make sure to ban me from it.

P.S.: I don't remember seeing LQ rules by which you can't comment in $DISTRIBUTION subforum unless you currently use $DISTRIBUTION. Perhaps I'll install Slackware on a spare machine (or just claim I did, how will you know the difference) and then continue to post here. Would that be ok with you sir?

Last edited by posixculprit; 06-11-2010 at 08:07 AM.
 
Old 06-11-2010, 08:11 AM   #70
damgar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: dallas, tx
Distribution: Slackware - current multilib/gsb Arch
Posts: 1,949
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 201Reputation: 201Reputation: 201
You get called a dick because you are overly sensitive and lack manners. I don't care what you do with Slackware, if you could stop the crying.

Last edited by damgar; 06-11-2010 at 08:12 AM.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-11-2010, 08:35 AM   #71
posixculprit
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 136

Rep: Reputation: 42
GTFO. I'm done with this thread.

Last edited by posixculprit; 06-11-2010 at 08:37 AM.
 
Old 06-11-2010, 08:41 AM   #72
elench
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
I started reading this thread then half way through I felt like I was reading something out of Somthingawful or 4chan.

Slackware works this way.
Slackware has alot of user/devs who like it this way.
Slackware is the only linux I can stand besides very very old outdated Redhat.
Slackware is nice this way.

Yes all us slackware users kiss each others butt and smell of poo cause of all that kissing. Nobody is asking anybody to watch 2 girls 1 cup if you watch and feel sick IT"S YOUR OWN BLOODY FREAKING FAULT.

geesh...
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-11-2010, 09:06 AM   #73
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Debian Testing
Posts: 19,192
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475Reputation: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by posixculprit View Post
GTFO. I'm done with this thread.
Only people with the word "Moderator" can tell people to GTFO. For everyone else, request (politely) that a mod deal with it.

As to your earlier comment, LQ does have a Slackware-centric forum - you are in it.

Remember the Rules - disagree politely. If you don't like a distro and don't seem to be getting any agreement from the rest of the membership, maybe you need to step away and accept that this is not a battle you can win.

That is all.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-11-2010, 09:12 AM   #74
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 3,314

Rep: Reputation: 1666Reputation: 1666Reputation: 1666Reputation: 1666Reputation: 1666Reputation: 1666Reputation: 1666Reputation: 1666Reputation: 1666Reputation: 1666Reputation: 1666
Quote:
Originally Posted by posixculprit View Post
GTFO. I'm done with this thread.
Sweet Jesus, that took long enough.
 
Old 06-11-2010, 09:12 AM   #75
gapan
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Posts: 370

Rep: Reputation: 142Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by samac View Post
I've been using Slackware for about 6 years and decided to add a SalixOS repository and slapt-get/gslapt as an experiment. It lasted for about an hour. It was telling me that I had lame and several other packages installed from slackbuilds and Salix, just because they were the same version number, it would not let me delete the Salix version as it wasn't actually installed. If a package manager cannot identify what is installed how can it process instructions on it.
So, you're blaming a tool, when you should only blame your inability to use it.

In the same manner, I'm creating my own mplayer packages and I'm replacing the one provided by slackware. Should I blame slackpkg when it removes it and replaces it with the official package, or should I just learn to use slackpkg properly?

I've seen so much misinformation in this thread I can't even start bothering. What's even worse is the hostility towards anyone having a different opinion about anything.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Package updater unable to resolve dependencies FC8 jayunplugged Fedora 2 03-07-2008 09:56 PM
Article about Slackware's 'Magic Package Maker( src2pkg) gnashley Slackware 22 12-01-2007 09:11 PM
LXer: A look at Slackware's package utilities LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-20-2007 11:46 PM
Poll: Yast Package Manager vs. Smart Package Manager in 10.1 agentchange SUSE / openSUSE 6 06-02-2006 08:29 AM
unsatisfied dependencies for smart package manager on PClinuxOS m.r.bob Linux - Distributions 5 01-16-2006 03:41 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration