Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 9th May 2005 18:38 UTC, submitted by Robert Burns
Slackware, Slax "I have very mixed feelings about this release of Slackware. I do not think that the underlying philosophy of Slackware is obsolete. The concept of a system that can be configured and molded to the n'th degree is still in my opinion very much a good idea. However, this release of Slackware is not without its problems in execution." Read the review here.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
@zyx a/k/a xyz
by ex-slacker on Tue 10th May 2005 16:54 UTC

Why should I use another package manager when I will be typing --nodep all day

Nah pal, you can just type -d or even put an alias in your /etc/profile. Personally i don't even type "pacman", just "pac"

In the end I will throw out all cruft, and it will end up being some sort of Slack

In the end I will throw out all cruft and it will all be just GNU utilities based on Linux kernel. What's your point here?

Slack consists of just vanilla versions of all software, packaged by someone I trust and buy a CD set from twice a year

Why would i bother to buy some cd's twice a year and doing a fresh reinstall when i can just type "pacman -Syu" once a day and keep my system constantly up-to-date. I don't even know what a system reinstall is no more.

I need no dependency checking, I need no update tool that automatically fetches packages from the internet, I need no hand holding, I need no automatic compilation infrastructure, I need no gazillion bleeding-edge packages

It's good you let us know that. Like i written previously, nothing really hold you back from using --nodep option in pacman. But
dependency handling in pacman is really an improvement, trust me or not. It ain't no old Red Hat's rpm tool.

end note: Why not build your own distro in "linux from scratch" fashion then?