You are not logged in.

#1 2004-05-02 08:38:49

jonathantan86
Member
Registered: 2004-05-02
Posts: 42

Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

I have two programs that interest me (LilyPond and Battle for Wesnoth) that don't have Arch Linux packages and compiling them would involve hunting everywhere for obscure dependencies (LilyPond in particular) so I just downloaded the Slackware packages, inspected them and found that by unzipping them onto the root folder (as superuser) and running the install script (if there is one) I can get them to run with minimal fuss.

Has the idea of making a Slackware to Arch package converter been brought up before? Is there any problems with this? (Slackware is i386-optimised if I remember correctly, but I think it's still worth it since there is more Slackware packages than Arch Linux ones out there.)

Offline

#2 2004-05-02 09:28:48

shadov
Member
From: Finland
Registered: 2004-02-28
Posts: 40

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

I think Slackware is i486-optimised.


Application of abstract techniques and utilities to solving a particular business problem is NOT a patentable idea. It is a fundamental concept of the IT industry.

Offline

#3 2004-05-02 11:29:00

i3839
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 1,185

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

Slackware is i686 optimized, but is i486 compatible (-march=i486 -mcpu=i686).

A Slackware to Arch pakckage converter sounds as a good idea, although solving dependencies could be a problem. Not the lack of dependencies of the Slackware package, but more the mixing of Slackware packages with Arch packages.

Offline

#4 2004-05-02 14:45:13

contrasutra
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2003-07-26
Posts: 507

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

That's a very bad idea. I'm sure the programs can be packaged just fine from source. Just because you're not able to, doesn't mean others can't do it for you. tongue

Arch changed GCC frequently, and there's no reason to cause possible binary compat problems.


"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern technology.  Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."

Offline

#5 2004-05-03 15:24:59

i3839
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 1,185

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

Oh? All I was hearing is that Arch already has enough packages, and that the devs are overloaded and almost down. Also getting custom packages into Arch's official repository seems a bit hard currently, not to mention that it's totally unclear how to do that (drop it in incomming and wait a year? Lotto?).

Maintaining packages is the most work, and every distro maintains the same packages over and over again. Tell me why to not use good, working packages from another sane distro?

Changing GCC often gives the same problem as updating to new major libraries. Simply leave the old GCC libs or make a seperate package for them. Currently it's rather impossible in Arch to install new packages with an outdated system, if that's solved then it's also easy to use Slackware packages.

Of course if would be best if there was a nice, good binary package standard that works on all distros, so that the application makers can make and maintain the packages themselves, but that's utopia (paths are too often hardcoded for instance).

It isn't a matter of being able to do something or not, it's a matter of convenience. All programs should be relative easy to compile from source, but that doesn't mean that everyone should compile all programs themselves.

Offline

#6 2004-05-03 16:13:55

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

i3839 wrote:

Maintaining packages is the most work, and every distro maintains the same packages over and over again. Tell me why to not use good, working packages from another sane distro?

Why not switch to the other distro and keep your flames to yourself?

Offline

#7 2004-05-03 16:58:21

i3839
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 1,185

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

Flames?? Where? You sure you didn't misread something?

Offline

#8 2004-05-03 18:04:13

LB06
Member
From: The Netherlands
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 435

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

Dusty wrote:
i3839 wrote:

Maintaining packages is the most work, and every distro maintains the same packages over and over again. Tell me why to not use good, working packages from another sane distro?

Why not switch to the other distro and keep your flames to yourself?

He's not flaming anyone  :?

Offline

#9 2004-05-03 18:31:23

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

i3839 wrote:

Flames?? Where? You sure you didn't misread something?

Probably. smile

Here's what I read, admitting that it doesn't seem quite as bad the second time around...:

Oh? All I was hearing is that Arch already has enough packages, and that the devs are overloaded and almost down.

"you don't know which way is up, you contradict yourself while continuing to ignore the problems and aren't fixing anything".

Also getting custom packages into Arch's official repository seems a bit hard currently, not to mention that it's totally unclear how to do that (drop it in incomming and wait a year? Lotto?).

"The system isn't working and you haven't done anything to try to fix it. I haven't read or noticed any of the threads illustrating that this topic has been argued to death and isn't going unnoticed"

Maintaining packages is the most work, and every distro maintains the same packages over and over again. Tell me why to not use good, working packages from another sane distro?

"The other distros are better."

(Personally, I don't care if anybody likes another distro better, but if so, use it instead, don't talk about it)

Changing GCC often gives the same problem as updating to new major libraries. Simply leave the old GCC libs or make a seperate package for them. Currently it's rather impossible in Arch to install new packages with an outdated system, if that's solved then it's also easy to use Slackware packages.

"The Arch philosophy of keeping packages stable but up to date is just plain wrong.  I don't bother to pacman -Syu before I mention problems."

Of course if would be best if there was a nice, good binary package standard that works on all distros, so that the application makers can make and maintain the packages themselves, but that's utopia (paths are too often hardcoded for instance).

"hey, I do have some good ideas". smile

It isn't a matter of being able to do something or not, it's a matter of convenience. All programs should be relative easy to compile from source, but that doesn't mean that everyone should compile all programs themselves.

"There aren't enough Arch binaries to go around"

OR:

"ABS sucks"

OR:
"Hold my hand, I can't compile."

OR:
"I use Arch cause I don't like Gentoo". :-D 

Yeah, some of that is a little (or quite, or even very) harsh, you can blame it on me rather than taking it to heart. wink

As for the slackware packages issue, I'm personally not writing a script to convert them; I've never used slackware in my life. The idea has merit, but I get tired of people discussing pros and cons and not doing anything. I think that's because I'm about as bad as anyone on that front, possibly worse.

Dusty

Offline

#10 2004-05-03 18:46:55

Xentac
Forum Fellow
From: Victoria, BC
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 1,797
Website

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

i3839 wrote:

Of course if would be best if there was a nice, good binary package standard that works on all distros, so that the application makers can make and maintain the packages themselves, but that's utopia (paths are too often hardcoded for instance).

That's exactly what the LSB tries to do, but here's a question.  If all distros followed the same standard related to binary compatibility, why would there be more than one?


I have discovered that all of mans unhappiness derives from only one source, not being able to sit quietly in a room
- Blaise Pascal

Offline

#11 2004-05-03 19:07:30

contrasutra
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2003-07-26
Posts: 507

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

I think everyone's point is that there's no reason you shouldn't just compile the app yourself (if it's not in the repos).

You will spend more time debugging converted pkgs then just compiling it yourself into an arch pkg.

ABS is very easy, you should be using it.

Frankly, I would consider you using other distro's pkgs to be "tainting" your system. How can we give you support when we have no idea what kind of binaries/libraries you're using and linking to?


EDIT:
Oh, and you don't need a package converter, just untar the pkg in the root dir. But of course, as with using any other distro's pkgs, you'll be subjecting yourself to library location problems, dependency issues, etc.

And I know for a fact lots of slackware pkgs wont work. Slackware doesn't use /opt for most things, while Arch uses it frequently.


"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern technology.  Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."

Offline

#12 2004-05-03 19:27:32

i3839
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 1,185

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

To Dusty:

First thought: What have you been smoking?

Do you always read everything in such a twisted way? I mean exactly what I write, not something else. Some things may be ironical or sarcastic, but it still means what it means, there are no hidden sentences between the lines. If I say that the devs are overloaded, I don't mean I think they're doing a bad job, but that they simply have too much to do, for example. Also keep in mind that this was a reply to what contrasutra said. You read more into my post than I could have thought of myself.

No one asked you to make a script or anything, we're just talking about an idea. I don't know about you, but if I have an idea I think is good and worth it, then I go for it and do it myself. But I learned the hard way that it's better to first poll the opinion of the devs and to see if there is enough demand for it before blindly implementing it.

FYI: I consider it an insult if you say that I flame when I don't.


To Xentac:

I know about the LSB, and if you do too then you know they want RPM. I said nice and good standard, that more or less rules out rpm it seems. Binary compatibility is something totally different than a package standard, but I assume that you're aware of that. Being binary compatible with other distros shouldn't be a goal, it should be just a coincidence. It's in general just a matter of having the right libraries installed. The nice thing about libraries is that you can have different versions installed at the same time. So being binary compatible doesn't mean that both distros have the same package versions installed or anything like that. I use Arch because of it's great init and config system, not for it's packages. Pacman is nice, but personally I don't care too much which package manager I use, as long as it does what I want.


To contrasutra:

Compiling apps is very easy, especially if they use CVS and have a proper build system. Then it's just a matter of "cvs update && make && make install" to be up to date again. I don't see any advantages of using ABS when it's just for personal use only.

It is silly to think that people who use Slackware packages with Arch will ask you for support. As I said mixing Arch and Slackware packages has it's problems, and you're probably right that debugging the packages that don't work takes more time than just recompiling it. It should be either a package convertor or a Slackware package installer, at least something that checks for conflicts in some way. This is one of those ideas that's probably not worth implementing though...

Offline

#13 2004-05-03 19:52:39

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

i3839 wrote:

First thought: What have you been smoking?

insulted.

Do you always read everything in such a twisted way?

insulted.

I mean exactly what I write, not something else. Some things may be ironical or sarcastic

use emoticons; they are meant to convey hidden meanings when text can be misinterpreted.

FYI: I consider it an insult if you say that I flame when I don't.

my pleasure. roll

Offline

#14 2004-05-03 19:58:51

Zephirias
Member
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Registered: 2004-04-26
Posts: 179

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

So what's this all now? We just dropped the old debate, and now we're in this one?

Geez, this Distro moves fast. lol


"Technically, you would only need one time traveler convention."

Offline

#15 2004-05-03 20:27:24

i3839
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 1,185

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

Just compare your interpretation with what I actually said...

Pardon me, but to me that seems like twisting things rather hard. So, twisting what I said in such way as you did makes me somewhat curious. Did you do that under certain  influences, e.g. weed/alcohol/bad sleep/bad day? Because if not, then the next natural questions is for me: Do you always read everything in such a twisted way? Or is it something else, like my writing style?

I'm aware that twisting things isn't a positive quality and may be seen as an insult or something like that, but if you simply twist things then don't expect me to not say that you twist things. Of course I could just shut up and don't share my first thought, probably the smarter and more diplomatic thing to do.

But you more or less bluntly said that I should switch to another distro and that I was flaming, without giving explanation, nor me a chance to explain myself further before you voice such harsh accusations. So I simply don't feel guilty by accidentally hurting you with not too thought out replies like this one. Just be glad I don't say anything about your emoticons remark. wink


Zephirias:

The old debate didn't really start yet (in the sense that there wasn't really a debate), and I don't have much more to say about it. As long as Arch compiles new packages against the newest libs, instead of the oldest working libs, it will be impossible to use Slackware packages, and impossible to install a new program if you have and outdated (but working fine and stable) Arch system. For Dusty: This doesn't mean that I think that Arch is doing the wrong thing, merely that it's a choice that Arch took with this effects. I don't even imply that Arch should change it's policy :!:

Offline

#16 2004-05-03 21:04:33

contrasutra
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2003-07-26
Posts: 507

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

Compiling apps is very easy, especially if they use CVS and have a proper build system. Then it's just a matter of "cvs update && make && make install" to be up to date again. I don't see any advantages of using ABS when it's just for personal use only.

If you don't want a package, why do you want a converter to begin with? I already told you how to use them. You WOULD want an arch pkg though, so you get things like file conflicts, depends, syncing, etc. THAT is why you should be using ABS.

It is silly to think that people who use Slackware packages with Arch will ask you for support.

You're asking for support RIGHT NOW. You want US to create a script to make it easier for you to mess up your system. If you wanted to do it, you shouldn't have posted at all.

Many others and myself have given you PLENTY of reasons why you shouldn't be doing it. There is absolutely NO reason why you should be using Slackware packages. It's that simple.


"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern technology.  Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."

Offline

#17 2004-05-03 22:20:51

i3839
Member
Registered: 2004-02-04
Posts: 1,185

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

contrasutra wrote:

If you don't want a package, why do you want a converter to begin with?

Perhaps for other people, people who prefer to not compile packages themselves and would like to use non-Arch packages? Is that so strange?

You're asking for support RIGHT NOW. You want US to create a script to make it easier for you to mess up your system. If you wanted to do it, you shouldn't have posted at all.

Eh... That's not true, I'm asking nothing of you, never done that and never will. I have no idea what gave you the idea, I even said that I didn't expect Dusty to make a script, so why do you think I asked you to make one?

Many others and myself have given you PLENTY of reasons why you shouldn't be doing it. There is absolutely NO reason why you should be using Slackware packages. It's that simple.

You're actually the only one who gave reasons to not use Slackware packages (read the above posts if you don't believe me). I already replied to those. I'm aware of the potential problems, I already pointed them out. I also said that currently it's more or less impossible to do right, so your post is redundant anyway.

The reason to use Slackware packages is that they are there already and that people can easily install a non-Arch package without bothering to compile it themselves.

I'll repeat myself: It's not worth implementing, and currently can't be done right.

Good luck with misreading what I write and have fun being hostile. Seems like it's impossible to have a normal discussion about some ideas here. sad

(Edit: Would almost think I was proposing to switch to RPM, considering the reactions...)

Offline

#18 2004-05-03 23:07:12

Neje
Member
From: Netherlands
Registered: 2004-05-03
Posts: 26

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

He's saying we should switch to RPM!
Burn him! i3839, you should start using Slackware with rpm's converted to tgz
with rpm2tgz, let's see you getting a working system then! That will show you
for saying that other distro's do things differently! You should know by now
that other distro's are the anti-Arch, and they do things WRONG! Incoming, as
Dusty said, is perfect, although it should be changed. The packagers
are just busy and they have plenty time to make packages for you if you stop
using ABS all the time to compile things from cvs, which is obviously why you
want to use slackpacks! You should apologize to contrasutra for forcing him to
write a script that messed up his system when he tried to test it!

Offline

#19 2004-05-03 23:27:24

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

first flames, then trolls. What will they think of next? roll

Offline

#20 2004-05-03 23:36:34

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

i'm for RiCPMS (really incompatible package management system) that unifies all pkg-managers and translates from all formats in all others, recompiles if needed, manipulates the source, checks the dependences and keeps track of the db it is based on ...

RiCPMS i propose for project *only* because of one thing: it's about 2 in the morning now here :-)


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#21 2004-05-03 23:49:01

Neje
Member
From: Netherlands
Registered: 2004-05-03
Posts: 26

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

If my post is considered to be trolling, dp should also be considered as a troll.

I don't mean that dp is a troll, I mean that we both aren't trolls. That clear enough for ya? Or should I have used more emoticons?

It's pretty late here too btw, so bye for now.

Offline

#22 2004-05-04 02:06:25

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

dp wrote:

RiCPMS i propose for project *only* because of one thing: it's about 2 in the morning now here :-)

Evening hours here, so I can come up with a more sensible option: DWIWPMS (Do What I Want Package Management System). Basically, this system would have exactly and only all packages I want installed without me having to tell it what those packages are, and would automatically update whenever I felt that newer packages were better as well as removing packages that I no longer have an interest in. Plus it would have infinite bandwidth... smile

Offline

#23 2004-05-04 13:41:46

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

hmm ... i only tried to make the whole subject a little bit funny - maybe with a little black humour ... if that's you call trolling, then my RiCPMS-idea is trolling - but i hope in a humourous way

by the way: when will DWIWPMS be stable? i especially like the infinite bandwidth feature and the rest sounds also great :-)


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#24 2004-05-04 15:34:21

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

dp wrote:

by the way: when will DWIWPMS be stable? i especially like the infinite bandwidth feature and the rest sounds also great :-)

I don't think it will be stable until the "WIW" part is within delta of 0...  How much bandwidth does it take to transmit 0 bytes?

Offline

#25 2004-05-04 16:50:46

apeiro
Daddy
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-12
Posts: 771
Website

Re: Slackware TGZ to Arch Linux Package Converter

I'm certainly not against a package converter.  Other users have converted RPMs to arch packages, and the world didn't stop or anything.

The great thing about contributions is that you don't need anyone's permission to make them.  No one can physically stop you from writing something that you (personally) find useful, even if the "powers that be" don't see it as a blessing.  Write it and put it up in the User Contributions forum.  If other people like it, you will receive feedback.  If virtually everyone out there hates it but you, who cares?  It took you 20 minutes to write, and you learned something along the way, and now you can convert slack packages.  It's a winning situation no matter what.  Look at people like Rasat.  That guy has made more contributions than some of the official developers, and he doesn't ask our permission.  He just makes something cool and then throws it at the public.  That's the spirit of open source, and for some reason, the whole damn house-of-cards actually seems to work.

<end rant>

Building a slack-to-arch converter should be almost trivial, as both are in .tar.gz format.  Arch uses three metafiles in each arch package, .PKGINFO, .FILELIST, and .INSTALL.

The first stores all meta-data like build time, dependencies, size, etc.  The second stores a full file listing of packages (this saves package load time, since pacman doesn't have to surf the full tarball to read all the filenames when doing conflict checks).  The third is optional, and if present, stores the pre/post install/remove scripting.

Take apart an Arch package and peek through it.  You should be able to do it in a bash script.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB