Hi,
I don't mean to start a war here, but I was wondering - why use a slackware .tgz file? Surely, it would be better to complie from source, because that way, you can be sure about dependencies - the configure script should tell you. Anyone care to enlighten me?

If u have the time for that stuff, it should be better I think. I think .tgz is well something related to pkgtool, so that u can clean the old.tgz (removepkg then installpkg new.tgz), isn't it so ?

I never used debian, n dunno how it's packages should be better ?

Why use .tgz as an alternative to what?

Personally, I prefer source.

What I was asking, is why use a .tgz instead of compiling from source? Btw, if you have failed dependencies, will it show up when you install from a .tgz? How can you tell what dependencies need to be met when installing from a .tgz package? I understand what you mean when you prefer from source, and until someone can explain tracking dependencies from a .tgz, source is also my favourite means of installatino

Of course you can always use checkinstall to replace the make install step. That way you get the advantages of compiling your own AND the ability to use package tools later on.

excellent....an elegant solution to a problem. I have now firmly decided that compliing from source is much better than using a slackware package, purely because of the need to track dependencies

Tracking dependancies isn't any easier/harder in packages/source. They are just different.

Basically, use packages if you dont want to or can't compile it. For example, Mplayer or Mozilla can be hard to compile,so some people like to get binaries instead.

I happen to like compiling from source; if something doesn't work, then I have to track down why and I end up learning more about the OS and program anyway And if it does work, then no problem at all

I'd have to disagree with you there. Normally, when compiling from source, when you execute the configure script, it will say at a certain point if you have failed dependencies what the dependencies are, and fail to create a makefile . On the other hand, if you're compiling from a *slackware .tgz* package, then it will not tell you about any such dependencies, and install none-the-less, which can prove annoying. To take a crude example, if you installed the netscape .tgz package, and didn't have X installed, it would install anyway, despite the fact that you need X, and it wouldn't even tell you so.

yeah, but when you tried to run Mozilla, it would say "libx missing" or something to that effect. You then search "libx" and find your dependancy.


Like programs have never met every dependancy, and then spit out a random make error during compile. How do you solve that?

sorry, I didn't know that it would tell you which dependency was missing - I haven't used that many .tgz packages. When compiling from source, I always find that the output of the ./configure script is very explicit in stating what dependencies aren't met
I'm wrong about the .tgz files ... sorry

no, TGZs dont track dependancies, but when you run the program, the error is usually very clear.

yes, what I meant was that I haven't used many .tgz packages, and so all of the dependency failures I encountered were picked up at the ./configure stage - I was apologizing for not knowing what would happen if you *ran* a program with a failed dependency [and using a tgz package is one way you could install something without realising this]....bit of a crosswire here

Two reasons:

1. Here is what I did recently:
--> Instant upgrade to kernel 2.4.21!

2. Dependencies? WHAT dependencies?
As long as you use official Slackware Linux packages, you don't have to worry about dependencies! Patrick V. took care of that for you -- as you will notice if you list all the files in a tgz package.

For everything else, yes, I agree, you need to compile from source. At least, using the official Slack tgz packages will install everything in the right place...