Re: Main idea ?
Posted: 8. Jun 2009, 12:21
It was an open question - not a judging one .gapan wrote:Yes, probably. Is that a bad thing?.:B:. wrote:To me that sounds like a medadistribution?
It was an open question - not a judging one .gapan wrote:Yes, probably. Is that a bad thing?.:B:. wrote:To me that sounds like a medadistribution?
I know!.:B:. wrote:It was an open question - not a judging one .gapan wrote:Yes, probably. Is that a bad thing?.:B:. wrote:To me that sounds like a medadistribution?
1. Perhaps it doesn't get enough attention?gapan wrote:But still, if someone thinks it's a bad idea, let's talk about it.
I don't think we should care much about that. Our goal should be to create something we enjoy working on and using ourselves first.thenktor wrote:1. Perhaps it doesn't get enough attention?
We can still replace anything we don't like about slackware with our own version... And maybe focus more on the stability than being innovative and bleeding edge all the time?thenktor wrote:2. Perhaps not enough advantages/innovations over Slackware?
We certainly don't! I don't know if we should care though.thenktor wrote:3. We probably don't have enough influence on Slack development.
Just wanted to say, that there certainly will arise things that we have to change, because they won't get fixed upstream in Slackware. And for the case that we have to rebuild some mandatory libs to "fix problems|get cool features|some other reasons" we can't be still sure that packages depending on these libs will be fully functional in a clean Slack enviroment. Basically then we have the same situation than with Zenwalk right now: most things will work, some will need some tweaks, some won't work.gapan wrote:We certainly don't! I don't know if we should care though.thenktor wrote:3. We probably don't have enough influence on Slack development.
I like the idea, but no dependency tracking could be a big problemgapan wrote:That way we won't need to pull slackware packages and put them in our repos (downside: no dependency support for slack packages, maybe we can work around it somehow).
I don't think slackware is that slow to introduce new versions of libraries/software. And in any case, backwards compatibility is not broken on most cases with an upgrade to a newer version. So we could use our own gtk+2 for example.thenktor wrote:Just wanted to say, that there certainly will arise things that we have to change, because they won't get fixed upstream in Slackware. And for the case that we have to rebuild some mandatory libs to "fix problems|get cool features|some other reasons" we can't be still sure that packages depending on these libs will be fully functional in a clean Slack enviroment. Basically then we have the same situation than with Zenwalk right now: most things will work, some will need some tweaks, some won't work.
But it will still be a full distribution. We'll provide our own iso for installation, it won't just be an addon repository for slackware.thenktor wrote:Personally I would be more interested in a well planned full distribution. That's why I've switched from Slackware to Zenwalk and not just using some Zen packages on Slackware