3 ms·

Same here. IMHO, Slackware is close to the local maximum in the space of imperative distros. I think adding dependency resolution is the only thing it misses v

by nextos 8y ago

Same here. IMHO, Slackware is close to the local maximum in the space of imperative distros. I think adding dependency resolution is the only thing it misses vs Arch or Void. But like those, it's barebones and it ships simple lean binary packages. Going back to Slackware was a brisk of fresh air when Ubuntu and friends got too complex. Sometimes things break, and it's hard to understand why due to the overwhelming amount of things they ship with. There's nothing like having total control of what you are running, and Slackware is really good at this. I think the future are functional distributions like NixOS or GuixSD. For many use cases, they are just ready for prime time. For others (e.g. R or Julia), where heavy patching / wrapping of packages is needed, there's still a bit of work to be done.

jolmg 8y ago
I could think your entire post might've been written by me if you replaced Slackware with Arch. I haven't tried Slackware, but this makes me wonder how similar it is to Arch. What do you mean it's missing dependency resolution? Do you need to install dependencies of packages manually?
- nextos 8y ago
  Yes. For various reasons Slackware doesn't have dependency resolution. This is why I've been using Arch and other distros since long ago. But in the late 90s there was no Arch. Besides, the amount of libraries was an order of magnitude smaller, so it wasn't such a hassle.
  - danieldk 8y ago
    ...and X11 and GNOME weren't split up in a gazillion packages.
- cyphax 8y ago
  Out of the box, you do have to install dependencies manually, but you don't have to track them, which is the part I would dislike about dependency resolution. Assuming you have a full installation (where all dependencies will be met), and you find your package on slackbuilds, dependencies will be listed and can be installed with about the same ease as you would install a package on, say, Debian.
enriquto 8y ago
> I think adding dependency resolution is the only thing it misses vs Arch or Void Please, no! Having independent packages is a huge plus! I moved out of voidlinux because I could not install the X headers without python2, due to some silly "dependency".
- nextos 8y ago
  Arch usually gets this right, and most stuff are optional dependencies.

by nextos 8y ago

jolmg 8y ago

I could think your entire post might've been written by me if you replaced Slackware with Arch. I haven't tried Slackware, but this makes me wonder how similar it is to Arch. What do you mean it's missing dependency resolution? Do you need to install dependencies of packages manually?

nextos 8y ago
Yes. For various reasons Slackware doesn't have dependency resolution. This is why I've been using Arch and other distros since long ago. But in the late 90s there was no Arch. Besides, the amount of libraries was an order of magnitude smaller, so it wasn't such a hassle.
- danieldk 8y ago
  ...and X11 and GNOME weren't split up in a gazillion packages.
cyphax 8y ago
Out of the box, you do have to install dependencies manually, but you don't have to track them, which is the part I would dislike about dependency resolution. Assuming you have a full installation (where all dependencies will be met), and you find your package on slackbuilds, dependencies will be listed and can be installed with about the same ease as you would install a package on, say, Debian.

enriquto 8y ago

> I think adding dependency resolution is the only thing it misses vs Arch or Void Please, no! Having independent packages is a huge plus! I moved out of voidlinux because I could not install the X headers without python2, due to some silly "dependency".

nextos 8y ago
Arch usually gets this right, and most stuff are optional dependencies.