Or perhaps form something like the DCC Alliance (formerly Debian Core Consortium) for the Slackware world? Come up with a common base for things like lib versions, repo format (spread the slapt-get + tlz love?), compile flags, etc.
Not sure if you guys are aware of this or not, but Ultima Linux and Wolvix have recently agreed to colaborate with each other. Perhaps that would be a good place to begin such a discussion?
I'm just now coming across this topic after being in a situation where I'm still looking for something more than what I've been using. What I've been using is mostly Slackware. But I have been looking for something substantially more potent. So here I find myself after searching for more information about the various Slackware-based distributions.
I'm trying to find people who are willing to work together and put parochial considerations aside. I have made contact with two other leaders with different projects. And as I have done with Vector, I have also introduced them to src2pkg (http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/amigolinux/download/src2pkg/src2pkg-1.9.7-noarch-17.tgz
). Since this is the tool I use to build all of my packages, I suggest it to anyone looking to minimize the amount of work they have to do to maintain their projects. It seems now that one of these projects will now be using src2pkg from this point on.
After reading about Zenwalk, I decided to investigate it more thoroughly than I had in the past. I have built and installed their NetPKG along with the dependencies. After careful consideration last night and early this morning, I have determined that the dependency tracking ability of Zenwalk is something that I need in the continuation of my project. Being that I'm working to create a server system likely to be used in large installations (with native clustering and all server applications preconfigured), dependency tracking is of the highest concern to me. I can not have a situation where users are having to work, just to be able to work. The notion of Zenwalk that everything be done for the user during installation of their packages, and not having to configure things later, is very appealing to me. That doesn't mean I'm perfectly satisfied with all of Zenwalk's decisions. One of the most important points of contention for me is the removal of all debugging tools.
For my application, where my system is likely to be used by those who have to build private packages in the course of their work, debugging tools are a necessity, not an option. What I'm building is a Public Technology Library. Everything that professionals use in research environments will have to be standard and installed without user intervention. Where I define intervention as a distraction from their daily duties. I need industrial-strength tools with point and click accessibility. My users cannot be forced to go looking for what they need. It simply needs to be there and ready to use. Broken dependencies would deter that ability, and therefore cannot be allowed. And in the event of packages failing to work as anticipated, the tools must be there for them to make proper bug reports to the appropriate developers. This must be a professional system. Nothing less can be tolerated.
I will continue posting here as I read through the rest of the comments in this topic.