[nSLUG] Debian X server help.

Paul Boudreau pbx at eastlink.ca
Wed Mar 3 12:13:24 AST 2004


Donald Teed wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 bdavidso at supercity.ns.ca wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi:
>>
>>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Donald Teed wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>You can do ANYTHING with Slackware.
>>>>Love those easy installs too.
>>>>There's no doubt it's the most under-rated.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Can you really do anything?  Try installing evolution 1.4
>>>under Slackware 9.0.
>>>      
>>>
>>First, since last September 9.1 is the current Slackware version (aside
>>from "Slackware-current" which is sort of like the Debian "testing"), so
>>for bleeding-edge apps like evolution you probably want to be using the
>>latest of whatever distro you use.
>>    
>>
>
>When I was trying to compile any version Evolution last summer,
>Slackware 9.1 didn't exist.  I updated so much stuff in Slackware 9
>(XFree86 with DRM, newest kernel available, ACPI back ports, etc.)
>that it was as good as 9.1 in many ways.
>
>Evolution 1.4 was released to great fan fair last spring/summer.
>At first they did not provide anything other than RPMs for Suse
>and Redhat.  People fumed.  Eventually they provided sources
>from CVS.  That would not compile on Slackware 9.0.
>
>Evolution 1.2 also would not compile on Slackware 9.0 because the libs
>were too new (shouldn't happen ideally, but it did).  Slackware
>packages for 1.3 existed, but as this is a development version
>it produced a nag on every start up that one should not
>be running that version.  I couldn't send that to our users.
>
>  
>
>>Second, never one to shirk a challenge, I decided to take up the gauntlet
>>you hurled above.  Of course, I'm not running 9.0, but I am running
>>Slackware.  Herewith the details:
>>    
>>
>
>Evolution 1.4 and Slackware 9.0 are an example of a situation which
>Slackware allows to happen.  If you use 9.1 you are in effect
>cheating, because the point isn't whether I could have waited for
>9 months last year for 9.1 to appear, but whether I could
>provide the ideal set of desktop packages for my users in
>time for an August deployment.
>
>I googled, I tried sources, I tried CVS, I tried claimed Slackware
>packages, and nothing would provide a non-nagging Evolution at
>the point of last summer.
>
>Again, this is not a question of can I get it to work now with 9.1,
>but that the situation existed for most of last year where it
>was IMPOSSIBLE to provide Evolution to my users.
>
>Whether it failed to provide me with Evolution, or whatever,
>when an OS fails me like that, I'm not quick to say let's go back
>and enjoy the agony again.  Not when I see how Xandros, Gentoo,
>Debian and many others deal with the issue painlessly.
>
>  
>
>>>Slackware has the weakest package management I've seen in any
>>>modern Linux distro.
>>>      
>>>
>>Or most efficient?
>>    
>>
>
>This is a little like saying dead people don't eat much.
>
>  
>
>>>In Slackware you are trapped in a snapshot of time for
>>>a certain range of libc and other dependancies.
>>>      
>>>
>>What does that mean?
>>    
>>
>
>Core packages are not updated until there is a new version of
>Slackware, unlike other distros where they do consider updating
>core parts and they will do so to support a wide variety of
>software packages.  At least I didn't see any updates to
>anything core related other than kernel-sources and KDE
>for the 5 months I had the project.
>
>  
>
>>>It requires
>>>an upgrade of the OS itself, not just packages, to get
>>>to a more graduated level of the core dependancies.
>>>      
>>>
>>The "OS itself" IS packages.  I have upgraded libc using the slackware
>>package tools several times.  You can upgrade the packages glibc-solibs
>>etc just like any other distro.  I don't think you have ever used
>>Slackware.
>>    
>>
>
>Did you go outside of the Slackware FTP mirrors to apply
>the updates/patches?
>
>  
>
>>>Sure you can manually compile your own base level of
>>>gcc, libc and friends, but you run the risk of an unknown
>>>number of applications breaking.
>>>      
>>>
>>If you upgrade your gcc, either by compiling it yourself or via paackage
>>tools, and that breaks other apps, then you have done something other than
>>upgrade your compiler.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Slackware is fine for setting up a machine with a couple of roles
>>>where you don't want a bunch of features, but for a desktop system,
>>>it is pain in the ass to set up.
>>>      
>>>
>>No, it isn't.  You should try it sometime.
>>    
>>
>
>I did work with Slackware for roughly 5 months, to build
>a nice desktop template for notebooks.  The users wanted
>it to offer all of the similar level of goodies as
>a person would find on the other bootable OS from Redmond
>on the same machine.  I don't use Evolution myself,
>but I was told users would want it.
>
>At the time I encountered the problems with Evolution building,
>I asked for assistance from many resources in how to resolve
>the issue, and found no one could.
>
>If you were setting up a desktop for yourself, and encountered
>problems with Realplayer, or Evolution, etc, the natural thing
>to do is move on to something else you think you will
>like, or get mad at Real for having such poor Linux support.
>But if you are setting up an ideal Linux desktop for
>deployment to hundreds of users of varying levels of
>Linux experience, it has to offer all of the stuff on the list.
>
>Given this type of task, Slackware truely is a pain to get the
>job done.
>
>The time required to install Slackware and set up a web server
>and a handful of desktop utilities like Kmail and Mozilla
>is less than a day.  But if you want the intensely GUI
>packages, like evolution, K3B, Mplayer, etc., it can
>take some time to decode the compile errors and figure
>out what dependancy is broken, and try, try again to
>build it.
>
>I'm sorry if Slackware is your favorite distro or second favorite,
>but you should really get out and try the other ones before too long.
>
>One man Linux distros just can't cover the ground of
>rich application support.  I've also found that the user
>contributed packages for Slackware are poor, so they don't
>make up for it.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nSLUG mailing list
>nSLUG at nslug.ns.ca
>http://nslug.ns.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nslug
>
>  
>
If I knew someone who HAD TO HAVE Evolution, first I
would try to talk them out of it. Then I'd tell them to
install Slack without Gnome, download dropline-installer
and an hour or so later they'd have a fully functional
Gnome desktop with Evo. Problem solved.



More information about the nSLUG mailing list