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.
Slackpkg+ can use this repository because it has the necessary components available to validate that repository. What I am trying to say is since you signed all your packages and sharing a public gpg-key slackpkg+ look's at your packages as being validated by you who signed them. You also have slackpkg+ the checksums to verify and let the other users know who added ur repo to the config file that there could be updates to the same program that they have on there computer.
This is just formal validation, giving some confidence that these packages were uploaded by me. Let's take a practical example: you are looking for a software called magic-wormhole (an awesome one, by the way), find it in this repository and install it using slackpkg+. As soon as you try to send a file to someone with it (wormhole send <some file or directory>), you will most probably realize that you miss a dependency. These dependencies are listed in this file and in PACKAGES.TXT. Is slackpkg+ going to tell you where to find them, and ideally fetch and install them for you? Also considering there can be discrepancies in the names of python packages between, say, SBo and this repository.
Last edited by Didier Spaier; 12-30-2022 at 08:53 AM.
I have no interests in personally maintaining this thing, because I do not use the slackpkg at all.
I for one, I use a different method: local rsync mirrors (in a custom router) of Slackware and Mr. Hameleers' repositories, a local repository of my own packages and some custom scripts.
However, in the last time I started to use also sbopkg for playing with GNOME4 from SBo in some computers.
Believe or not, however I can recognize a thing being useful for many others, even I do not use it myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windu
Put your money where your mouth is.
WHY always the people here assumes that someone requests something exclusively for his own personal benefits?
It's a true alien concept someone to think about the general wellness? You know, the Greater Good?
Your acting it's like living in a village, and if I say to someone:
- We should repair that damn dam from the back of village, or we are at risk to be flooded.
And the other villagers to respond:
- We? About who "we" you talk?
Last edited by LuckyCyborg; 12-30-2022 at 09:47 AM.
Question/request regarding re-enabling SIXEL support in XTerm. Since XTerm > 3.71 is not affected by the CVE-2022-24130 (see for example) it will be good to re-enable SIXEL support in -current.
I for one, I started to believe that naming the development tree of Slackware as "current" is misleading for the beginner users of Slackware.
So, my proposal is to rename the tree of slackware-current to slackware-development or slackware-devel or slackware-testing or whatever else name associated with its true development stage.
There certainly does seem to be a common misconception that Slackware(64)-current is the "rolling release" edition of Slackware. The fact that it is classified as such on sites like DistroWatch probably doesn't help.
The proposal to rename the development tree is probably not bad in theory...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwizardone
No real need, in my opinion, to change the name of -current. Those who seem to not understand -current is the development branch will get just as "confused" regardless of whatever name is used.
Yes, that is a fair point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalDreamer
Please add slackpkg+ to Current!
That is a can of worms!
Quote:
Originally Posted by marav
SBo is officially supported by Slackware
I don't believe that this is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyCyborg
On contrary, if we want to ever break the curse of Holly Full Install and every Slacker to stop to install a full LAMP stack along one truck load of FTP and other God knows for what servers in their HTPC and people to install the Xorg stack in their LAMP servers just because, we need first of all a remote packages manager which support multiple trees.
Speaking personally, I like the fact that I have a LAMP stack out of the box... or the fact that a SAMBA DC can be up and running within a few minutes, or that I have a VPN, NFS, backup system, development workstation or office desktop... all without any significant effort.
Flexibility is the name of the game.
A single, uniform 16Gb installation which can be used for almost any purpose out of the box. That is one of Slackware's best features IMO.
Life is too short to spend days/weeks building an OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisretusn
Why would "we" want to break this curse of the "Holly Full Install". I see it as a blessing. You have a complete distribution all dependencies are already resolved. By using slackpkg you can easily keep it that way.
Yawn. The idea that our BDFL should hijack a third party project to create an official tool to handle third party software created with uncontrolled third party builds from uncontrolled third party repositories is farcical. Not least, there is potential for distribution of patent encumbered builds, a legal minefield best avoided.
What is so hard about installing slackpkg+ that it needs to be an official package?
The FAQ says that SBo is run by volunteers who are not affiliated with Patrick or Slackware Linux Inc.
I do not necessarily understand this distinction
But if it's on the main page of the official site of the distribution
Can we say it's "supported by" ?
Code:
Build scripts for all kinds of additional software for Slackware 15.0 can be found on the slackbuilds.org website.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
this is one of the new features. It is not working now probably because slackpkg+ site is down.
