LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
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 07-08-2003, 07:12 PM   #1
andrewlkho
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 548

Rep: Reputation: 30
why use .tgz?


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?
 
Old 07-08-2003, 07:21 PM   #2
linuxJaver
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Jakartax, ID
Distribution: slack9.1+,9.1,rh9
Posts: 203

Rep: Reputation: 30
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 ?
 
Old 07-08-2003, 07:31 PM   #3
Locura
Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Distribution: Ubuntu 6.10 SE, Mac OS 10.4.8
Posts: 370

Rep: Reputation: 30
Why use .tgz as an alternative to what?

Personally, I prefer source.
 
Old 07-08-2003, 07:46 PM   #4
andrewlkho
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 548

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
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
 
Old 07-08-2003, 08:08 PM   #5
Hangdog42
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,803
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 416Reputation: 416Reputation: 416Reputation: 416Reputation: 416
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.
 
Old 07-08-2003, 08:19 PM   #6
andrewlkho
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 548

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
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
 
Old 07-08-2003, 08:23 PM   #7
contrasutra
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 1,445

Rep: Reputation: 46
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.
 
Old 07-08-2003, 09:08 PM   #8
Poetics
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,181

Rep: Reputation: 49
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
 
Old 07-08-2003, 09:28 PM   #9
andrewlkho
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 548

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by contrasutra
Tracking dependancies isn't any easier/harder in packages/source. They are just different.
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.
 
Old 07-08-2003, 09:35 PM   #10
contrasutra
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 1,445

Rep: Reputation: 46
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?
 
Old 07-08-2003, 10:11 PM   #11
andrewlkho
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 548

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
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
 
Old 07-08-2003, 10:16 PM   #12
contrasutra
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 1,445

Rep: Reputation: 46
no, TGZs dont track dependancies, but when you run the program, the error is usually very clear.
 
Old 07-08-2003, 10:57 PM   #13
andrewlkho
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 548

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
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
 
Old 07-09-2003, 08:25 AM   #14
Noryungi
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: --> X <-- You are here.
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 292

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
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
Two reasons:

1. Here is what I did recently:
Code:
upgradepkg kernel-ide-2.4.21-i486-1.tgz 
upgradepkg kernel-modules-2.4.21-i486-1.tgz
lilo
--> 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...
 
  


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
a tgz that doesn't end in tgz flebber VectorLinux 3 05-03-2006 06:31 AM
tgz file doesn't end in .tgz? detpenguin Slackware 4 05-15-2004 08:13 PM
how to tgz Longinus Slackware 5 12-14-2003 11:48 AM
tgz depaul Linux - Software 4 08-26-2003 03:36 PM
X Sever crash after xset.tgz & vg16.tgz install lachlan Slackware 0 08-13-2003 03:48 AM

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 PM.

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