Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

koulaxizis · Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Posts: 454 Location: Greece

Do you think it would be possible (or even practical/useful) to be able to use snap packages on Puppy?

Reference: https://snapcraft.io/

slavvo67 · Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Posts: 1570 Location: The other Mr. 305

It's good to see you back!

There are a lot of different types of packages, similar to snap packages. There's a decent appimage thread in the forum that you may want to check out, though I find some of the appimages don't work or are a bit older.

Quick answer, thought, is the more options, the better in my opinion. Barry Kauler has also been looking into the on package fits all scenario. You may want to read his blog, as well.

Good to see you.

Slavvo67

rockedge · Posted: Thu 26 Jul 2018, 14:59 Post subject:

I got Flatpak to work....installed GIMP 2.10 using it.

mikeslr · Posted: Thu 26 Jul 2018, 19:34 Post subject: Snap vs. flatpak vs AppImage

The following post provides, I think, the relative advantages and disadvantages of Snap vs. flatpak vs AppImage. https://askubuntu.com/questions/866511/what-are-the-differences-between-snaps-appimage-flatpak-and-others.

Draw your own conclusions. My take is that using them with Puppies as an alternative to SFSes, the advantage lies with AppImages. Indeed, we could even create and host them. Something to be considered if the devs who maintain aufs ever quit, and gyro's overlayfs becomes a necessity. [Or maybe I've misread the reason for overlayfs].

mikesLr

koulaxizis · Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Posts: 454 Location: Greece

@slavvo67 It's good to be back with you guys! Smile

mikeslr · Posted: Sun 12 Aug 2018, 13:33 Post subject:

Hi koulaxizis,

This is the beginning of the main AppImage thread, http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=110078 on which you'll find links to repos. Someone --IIRC, rockedge-- provided information about how an AppImage was modified to include libraries that had not been built in but were required by his/her OS.

There's also tools and instructions, I think, on the main AppImage cite for making such changes.

One of the problems working with AppImages which don't run OOTB is that lld can't immediately be used. On one occasion, I shortened the name to make it easier to start via a terminal several times and while laboriously installing the libs it required and hadn't found on my system.

AppImages are great when they work. But frankly, building and using SFSes are easier. But that opinion might change if and when I've setup a Puppy to use the tools available for building and modifying AppImages.

I'm not inclined to do that before someone creates a 64-bit BionicPup. Ubuntu Bionic Beaver has Long Term Support thru 2023 --and "I'm getting to old for this". 64 rather than 32 as I suspect long before 2023 32-bit web-browsers will be few, far between, and unable to render many webpages.

mikesLr