package management stinks

What features/apps/bugfixes needed in a future Puppy
Message
Author
SimpleWater
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue 19 Apr 2011, 11:53

package management stinks

#1 Post by SimpleWater »

I was looking at other distros the other day, and it made me realize how low the puppy package management really is. Actually compared to other distros, the package management feels like a limping sloth, who has lived for 500 years. Either the software i'm looking for is not there, or the software is outdated by 5 years.

Is anyone going to do something about this??

User avatar
alienjeff
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat 08 Jul 2006, 20:19
Location: Winsted, CT - USA

#2 Post by alienjeff »

I strongly advise donning some asbestos apparel, post haste. Trust me on this...
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]

SimpleWater
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue 19 Apr 2011, 11:53

#3 Post by SimpleWater »

I am not trying to start a flame war here, this is the suggestions board after all.

User avatar
harii4
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri 30 Jan 2009, 04:08
Location: La Porte City, IA , U.S.A.
Contact:

#4 Post by harii4 »

What puppy are you using?

If you what an bleeding edge one - you would not be using an stable one.
example:
You want new solfware in debian you would not be using the stable branch but the cutting edge one.

if you are using an old pup than yes you'll have 5 year software and love it.
look into one of the dpups
PS. i use old hardware so i use old software too.
3.01 Fat Free / Fire Hydrant featherweight/ TXZ_pup / 431JP2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace and Justice are two sides of the same coin.

User avatar
harii4
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri 30 Jan 2009, 04:08
Location: La Porte City, IA , U.S.A.
Contact:

#5 Post by harii4 »

@SimpleWater
I didn't think it was flame bait - at all :D
there are so many puppies out there? :D
someone will come along and suggest an puppy for you.
I don't use an updated puppy - so, I'm not much help. :oops:
3.01 Fat Free / Fire Hydrant featherweight/ TXZ_pup / 431JP2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace and Justice are two sides of the same coin.

User avatar
r1tz
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu 09 Sep 2010, 05:19
Location: In #puppylinux (IRC)

#6 Post by r1tz »

I have too agree. The package management is lacking.

I'm sure it will improve.

I think that the puppy package manager also has room for improvement. If I recalled correctly, Iguleder has made an improved package manager for himself?

User avatar
russoodle
Posts: 707
Joined: Fri 12 Sep 2008, 17:36
Location: Down-Under in South Oz

#7 Post by russoodle »

Yes, Iguleder has developed some tools, Puppy User Repository, he calls it, for compiling one's own packages, so even i might be able to put something together with them :D
Here's something I've been working on for some time: an automated, elegant and simple way to install packages from source, similar to FreeBSD's ports, Gentoo's Portage and Arch's AUR.
You'll find his thread here

..and i've uploaded his pur-tools to my server here.
To download, enter username: puppy and pawsword: linux.
[i][color=Green][size=92]The mud-elephant, wading thru the sea, leaves no tracks..[/size][/color][/i]

User avatar
r1tz
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu 09 Sep 2010, 05:19
Location: In #puppylinux (IRC)

#8 Post by r1tz »

Yea. Thats his latest coolest project.

However, I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to an actual package manager. Not one that compile from source.

He improve on the GUI or something. I'm not sure if he actually release it.

User avatar
Iguleder
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 09:36
Location: Israel, somewhere in the beautiful desert
Contact:

#9 Post by Iguleder »

r1tz wrote:Iguleder has made an improved package manager for himself?
Two mistakes:
- Not for myself.
- Not a package manager.
- "Has made"? More like "has been working on" :)
r1tz wrote:Thats his latest coolest project.
Definitely the coolest idea I've ever implemented for Puppy. :D
r1tz wrote:He improve on the GUI or something.
Not only the GUI, I'm working on the whole thing.
r1tz wrote:I'm not sure if he actually release it.
These things have that alpha-nature no matter what the version number is.
[url=http://dimakrasner.com/]My homepage[/url]
[url=https://github.com/dimkr]My GitHub profile[/url]

User avatar
sickgut
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue 23 Mar 2010, 19:11
Location: Tasmania, Australia in the mountains.
Contact:

yes it does

#10 Post by sickgut »

hi ppl sickgut here

ive been trying to address the package management issue myself, first i tried the apt-get method, it was a success for small programs that dont depend on alot of critical stuff, sure the program will install fine but your puppy wont boot, this is a worst case scenario but it happends often with apt-getting say VLC and others. Apt-getting nano, xaos, some games etc works fine. The issue here is that the installed packages can overrite puppies custom scripts.
The apt-get will work fine if the server it connectted to had custom packages.
Doing this gains nothing compared to what is going on now.

The less time spent on packages for puppy = more time spent on the OS.

The next thing im doing is making Pussy Linux.
www.thepussycatforest.info <---- my site has info on this.

Pussy linux is a debian OS that will be made to resemble Puppy and have comparable performance and ram usage etc. The upside is that it will infact have 100% working apt-get capability that will work 100% of the time.
This is because while custom, Pussy keeps all the scripts in a /scripts folder and nothing from debian will install to there and over write it.
I have released a live base i am using to build it. But there is no escaping the fact that Pussy will be 40 - 50mb larger than Puppy. However this doesnt affect ram usage on full or non copy to ram systems as its what is loaded into the ram at once that dictates ram usage not the size of the OS on the disk. There is actually more hardware than Puppy supported, also users can get tech help from #debian. This uses an unmodified debian squeeze 2.6.32-5-686-bigmem kernel so its 32 bit but you can use 4gb + ram. Note: the base iso i have released will need nano. net-tools, libcurses5, ifupdown and if you want wireless support, the wireless-tools package from the http://packages.debian.org site for it to be workable. dpkg --install packagename will work. There is save file info on the site.

The 3rd way is i am in the process of implimenting "shoehorn" linux universal static package management. Basicly i set a VPS up dedicated to it and users of any 32 bit linux distro download a client program (set of scripts with a menu) and once this is executed on the users system it will fetch a updated list from the server. The user then selects what package they want and their system wgets it and unzips it into a /static dir. There will be options for the basic program they want or the program + all reasonable dependencies. There is also a complete uninstall script that gets linked to your ~ home folder and also a link to execute the program.

This may seem like nothing is gained by this method over and above the current system, but there is something important here and that is:

WE WILL HAVE THE AID OF THE ENTIRE LINUX COMMUNITY TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A UNIVERSAL REPOSITORY.

So basicly eerythng will work on Puppy and most other distros but everyone from everyother linux distro will help with the labour.

The applications will be stripped of anything that is not needed and there will be 2 versions available, one with all possible dependencies and one with only the bare program. Most dependencies needed will be in their own packages as well and available to download in the same way so there isnt alot packages sitting on your hdd with doubled up dependencies clogging up your mojo.

The apt-get for puppy is a fail. The Pussy linux is in progress but the working version i am messing with delivers on everything i set out to do, and the shoehorn system is in the early design stages.

User avatar
lithpr
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu 10 Mar 2011, 06:33

#11 Post by lithpr »

Hey sickgut,

I've been keeping up with these developments in the irc channel. Just wanted to mention here: rock on!

Bruce B

Re: package management stinks

#12 Post by Bruce B »

SimpleWater,

You, we, none of us need Puppy's package-management to build elaborate and comprehensive systems.

I don't even use the package-management system at all. I have an idea how much of it works, but I don't use it.

It is a convenience to be sure, to the extent it is well organized and functional. But our actual dependency on it is mostly a mis-understanding, (with some possible exceptions).

Bruce

~

User avatar
sickgut
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue 23 Mar 2010, 19:11
Location: Tasmania, Australia in the mountains.
Contact:

learning

#13 Post by sickgut »

i think most non newbies end up making packages themselves, i think when people get to the stage that they know to run a non working program in a terminal, read the errors and hunt down the dependencies they are missing and then copy and paste the filename they need in a website like http://packages.debian.org and the download and install the missing package, this simple skill seems to help newbies shoehorn packages onto puppy 85% of the time.

I think the other 15% of the problem is the fact that alot of .deb type packages need actual configuring not just unzipping onto your filesystem, im not sure if latter puppies actually configure the packages propperly during/ after installation.

there is a difference between:

dpkg-deb -x packagename.deb /

and

dpkg --install packagename.deb /

one just unzips the archive to the file system the other unzips, and also changes stuff around depending on what else is on your system.

Can someone tell me what method the PPM uses to install this when you click on a .deb file in the later Puppies?

I know the apt-get system i made configures stuff but it configures stuff for ubuntu or debian not puppy and that was the problem.

What Bruce said is true about the package manager, its handy as a tool to help you get to where your going but we arent tied into using it, and most experience users just grab the static install of the program they wanna use from the vendors site (skype from the skype site, assaultcube from the assultcube site etc...) install them, hunt around for a bit for a few deps, maybe remove some unneeded stuff to strip it a bit and thats it.

Yes i think package management is usefull, but i think education is even more so.
I wonder if a tutorial on how to install static packages and look for dependencies would be usefull? Im willing to make one next time i get all fired up if yall think it would help people, but i also think that puppy could include a few more commonly needed dependencies, for the sake of another 20 or 30mb i think it would be worth it, i think puppies lack of basic stuff is the thing that makes newbies fearful trying to install stuff themselves because pretty much nothing at all will work on puppy without hunting for a million dependencies, i also think that a large dependencies/ libs .sfs could help this even if its the size of devx

SimpleWater
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue 19 Apr 2011, 11:53

#14 Post by SimpleWater »

Oh that is good news then, thanks for the replies guys. It looks there are many things being done about it. Iguleder's tool seems like the next best thing, so i will surely test it out and post back results.

@Sickgut, really good going on your progress. The whole universal repository system, is sounding very nice. Actually that sounds like the ultimate solution, so hopefully development is going well. Debian puppy also sounds intresting as well, although it probably won't have the support from the forum :roll:

@harii, i don't really need the bleeding edge like arch. Just somewhere at the decent level would be nice, and yes i am using the latest standard puppy 525

@bruceb, well you probably do you it yourself, but i'm sure you still use the ppm to uninstall a pet

User avatar
russoodle
Posts: 707
Joined: Fri 12 Sep 2008, 17:36
Location: Down-Under in South Oz

#15 Post by russoodle »

sickgut wrote:Yes i think package management is usefull, but i think education is even more so.
I wonder if a tutorial on how to install static packages and look for dependencies would be usefull? Im willing to make one next time i get all fired up if yall think it would help people,
I very much agree that education is useful and i for one would appreciate a tutorial, so thank you for what you do for Puppy and for us.

BruceB might do his own thing, but some of us need a bit of a shove in the right direction and more confidence before we get to that stage :wink:
[i][color=Green][size=92]The mud-elephant, wading thru the sea, leaves no tracks..[/size][/color][/i]

Bruce B

#16 Post by Bruce B »

russoodle wrote:BruceB might do his own thing, but some of us need a bit of a shove in the right direction and more confidence before we get to that stage :wink:
That's what I think I did, I think - went in the right direction.

I was distributing packages. Soon I realized there is a problem and I stopped. I just checked the page below and it appears to me I stopped in 2005.

http://pupweb.org/wikka/DotPupsContributions

~

User avatar
Luluc
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed 16 Mar 2011, 07:10

Re: learning

#17 Post by Luluc »

sickgut wrote:What Bruce said is true about the package manager, its handy as a tool to help you get to where your going but we arent tied into using it, and most experience users just grab the static install of the program they wanna use from the vendors site (skype from the skype site, assaultcube from the assultcube site etc...) install them, hunt around for a bit for a few deps, maybe remove some unneeded stuff to strip it a bit and thats it.
I've been around here for about a couple of months and gotten used to seeing several complaints being dismissed because "Puppy is supposed to be that way, limited but simple, in the name of newbie-friendliness." But now, all of a sudden, it is argued that "most Puppy users are savvy, will get by on their own and don't need no fancy-shmancy package manager."

Well, which is it? It is beginning to sound like the Puppy community will just say whatever suits their mood du jour about just leaving things the way they are.

I've said it elsewhere and I will say it again: the Puppy package manager is one of the most absolutely horrible things I have ever seen in my whole life regarding the use of a computer. The only worse thing I can think of is loading programs from a cassete tape on a ZX Spectrum computer. Yes, that was worse.

User avatar
sickgut
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue 23 Mar 2010, 19:11
Location: Tasmania, Australia in the mountains.
Contact:

re: luluc's valid argument

#18 Post by sickgut »

hi luluc, in answer to your perfectly valid argument re your last post:
"Puppy is supposed to be that way, limited but simple, in the name of newbie-friendliness." But now, all of a sudden, it is argued that "most Puppy users are savvy, will get by on their own and don't need no fancy-shmancy package manager."
Yes comming into the Puppy world we are all newbies, incapable of installing programs other than what is in the package manager and the links to software that the helpful people on the irc support chan give you.

it is quite limiting for a new linux user to install all the software they need/ want.

But what usually happens is that the new users gradually learn how to make their own pet packages or install software from other sites, in a gradual learning process as this is the only way to survive in the world of Puppy.

So yes, the package management is crappy and it needs to be fixed up into something better. But most users, if they stick with puppy end up making their own packages. I dont know the exact ratio of people who try puppy, then leave and move onto something else after a week or 2 due to poor package management, compared with the users who stick around and learn to make their own packages, but i think it is safe to say that with better package management, we would grab the newbies and keep them.

To keep our newbies happy we need better package management. But to the experienced users it doesnt really matter as they generally ignore the package manager and make their own custom packages the way they want them.

So Luluc, we do definately indeed need a better package system, the sooner the better.

User avatar
sickgut
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue 23 Mar 2010, 19:11
Location: Tasmania, Australia in the mountains.
Contact:

same as bruceb

#19 Post by sickgut »

sry to keep hogging the thread, but i like bruceb have also stopped making puppy specific packages, this is because it doesnt really fix any problem. It is only a bandaid effect and it i feel it only encourages disunity in the puppy community, there is always 10x different packages made every day that do the same thing all of varying quality and i feel it doesnt help anyone.

Maybe if there was a process in which packages are sorted and organized propperly such as like happens with debian, this would be better. we need only one decent package that does one thing, not 10 different pidgin pets released every day. we are doing 10 times the amount of labour we should be doing as a community and its no wonder some people loose faith in the whole process.

due to the lack of a good package management system i have been trying to help newbies make their own packages, i feel this is more effective but ofcause there is 10 newbies who will slide through the cracks and not get looked after correctly compared to the 1 who makes it through the initiation process.

i also believe that the sooner we get a system that grabs packages from other major distros repos and installs them correctly and strips them down to puppy size, the better. we shouldnt all be slaving away making custom puppy packages if there are a million packages already made, waiting to be download.

ok ill stop hogging the thread, i am quite passionate about package management.

User avatar
RetroTechGuy
Posts: 2947
Joined: Tue 15 Dec 2009, 17:20
Location: USA

#20 Post by RetroTechGuy »

r1tz wrote:I have too agree. The package management is lacking.

I'm sure it will improve.
I think that one of the big "holes" is that we really don't (or didn't*) have a reliable, long-term stable repository for the package.

And only rarely can a user tell what a package does, or is useful for, by the name alone -- we need a descriptive concordance or index to go with our repository.

* - more and more stuff is being stored at ibiblio. Though the loss of the majority of the content at puppy.asia really hurt... There too we could have used a proper descriptive index of the files.
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=58615]Add swapfile[/url]
[url=http://wellminded.net63.net/]WellMinded Search[/url]
[url=http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html]PuppyLinux.US Search[/url]

Post Reply