Lucid Puppy 5.2.8 - Updated ISO Version 005 - APR 05 2012

A home for all kinds of Puppy related projects
Message
Author
User avatar
playdayz
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri 25 Apr 2008, 18:57

#1261 Post by playdayz »

Could you explain why xorgwizard has to be entered twice?
Why one time is not enough?
I need to revisit that and update. The problem was an idiosyncrasy in earlier versions. Thanks.

User avatar
bigpup
Posts: 13886
Joined: Sun 11 Oct 2009, 18:15
Location: S.C. USA

#1262 Post by bigpup »

Playdayz,

I have seen quite a few posts about battery level indication issues in Lucid Puppy versions.
This is one about Lucid Puppy 5.2 and 5.2.8 that seems to indicate a good fix for the problem.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=64776
Refers to here also:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=71599

Here is a battery laptop tools pet by pemasu that seems to help cure problems.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 125#563125
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected :shock:
YaPI(any iso installer)

User avatar
bigpup
Posts: 13886
Joined: Sun 11 Oct 2009, 18:15
Location: S.C. USA

#1263 Post by bigpup »

Playdayz,

I have seen quite a few posts about battery level indication issues in Lucid Puppy versions.
This is one about Lucid Puppy 5.2 and 5.2.8 that seems to indicate a good fix for the problem.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=64776
Refers to here also:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=71599

Here is a battery laptop tools pet by pemasu that seems to help cure problems.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 125#563125

Also this info:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=76516
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected :shock:
YaPI(any iso installer)

User avatar
ASRI éducation
Posts: 3197
Joined: Sat 09 May 2009, 12:10
Location: France
Contact:

#1264 Post by ASRI éducation »

bigpup wrote:Here is a battery laptop tools pet by pemasu that seems to help cure problems.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 125#563125
This solution sounds interesting.

radky
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon 03 May 2010, 03:13

#1265 Post by radky »

Hi playdayz,

When you have a free moment, please check your PM.

Thanks

User avatar
bigpup
Posts: 13886
Joined: Sun 11 Oct 2009, 18:15
Location: S.C. USA

#1266 Post by bigpup »

The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected :shock:
YaPI(any iso installer)

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

The Future of Linux, never mind Puppy

#1267 Post by otropogo »

A propos of the proliferation of both official and unofficial Puppies, and the effect this has had, and will have increasingly, on the range of applications, and the currency and quality of upgrades and of support, I today came upon the eloquent lament of an experienced and dedicated Linux user.

In it he says pretty much of the entire global Linux community what I've been observing of Puppy, especially in the past two years.

Some of you may find it of interest (if you can get past the title and look at the substance):

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/goin ... ndows.html
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

strange partition behaviour

#1268 Post by otropogo »

Today I removed two partitions from one drive of my Puppy system. They were named sda1 and sda5, originally from a Windows partitioning system.

The job was done via a PartedMagic bootable disk, since the Gparted in Lupu 5.2.8 refused to load when I selected hdd sda.

When I rebooted with lupu, I was surprised to see the icons for sda 1 and sda5 still on the desktop, and even more so when clicking on them caused the mounted flag to appear, without registering any error message.

Neither partition is shown in the pmount window, but then, neither has sda3 been renamed.

To reduce the confusion, I finally moved the icons for sda1 and sda5 to trash, although the warning that something was linked to them and would be trashed as well gave me a bit of pause.

Should I leave things as they are or rename sda3 to something more meaningful? Or is there a reason I should return the two partition icons to the desktop?
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

Brown Mouse
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue 09 Jun 2009, 21:06

#1269 Post by Brown Mouse »


I've updated Pmusic from 2.30 to 2.4.4-1 but now when I launch a music cd I don't get any track information(apart form the no.) or album artwork as before.
Anyone else see this?

kevin bowers
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun 20 Dec 2009, 20:41

Re: strange partition behaviour

#1270 Post by kevin bowers »

otropogo wrote:Today I removed two partitions from one drive of my Puppy system. They were named sda1 and sda5, originally from a Windows partitioning system.

The job was done via a PartedMagic bootable disk, since the Gparted in Lupu 5.2.8 refused to load when I selected hdd sda.

When I rebooted with lupu, I was surprised to see the icons for sda 1 and sda5 still on the desktop, and even more so when clicking on them caused the mounted flag to appear, without registering any error message.

Neither partition is shown in the pmount window, but then, neither has sda3 been renamed.

To reduce the confusion, I finally moved the icons for sda1 and sda5 to trash, although the warning that something was linked to them and would be trashed as well gave me a bit of pause.

Should I leave things as they are or rename sda3 to something more meaningful? Or is there a reason I should return the two partition icons to the desktop?
More info please! Where is lupu installed, sda3? Or did you boot from CD? What does Partview report? Or Pdisk? If Gparted has problems with the drive I'd begin to suspect a bad MBR, but remember it can take a long time to scan partitions when loading. First guess is that too many partition utilities have been fooling with your partition table (part of the MBR) and the whole disk will have to be wiped to get it straight, but again, not enough info to tell at this point.

kevin bowers
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun 20 Dec 2009, 20:41

Re: strange partition behaviour

#1271 Post by kevin bowers »

Don't know if it's Murga-linux or my wonderful satellite ISP but I wound up with a double post, sorry!

User avatar
playdayz
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri 25 Apr 2008, 18:57

#1272 Post by playdayz »

Bootflash

Bigpup brought this to Barry's attention and got a fix. Here it is. It is only useful or necessary for people using Bootflash to install to a usb stick.

Info -> http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02740

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: strange partition behaviour

#1273 Post by otropogo »

kevin bowers wrote:
otropogo wrote:Today I removed two partitions from one drive of my Puppy system. They were named sda1 and sda5, originally from a Windows partitioning system.

The job was done via a PartedMagic bootable disk, since the Gparted in Lupu 5.2.8 refused to load when I selected hdd sda.

When I rebooted with lupu, I was surprised to see the icons for sda 1 and sda5 still on the desktop, and even more so when clicking on them caused the mounted flag to appear, without registering any error message.

Neither partition is shown in the pmount window, but then, neither has sda3 been renamed.

To reduce the confusion, I finally moved the icons for sda1 and sda5 to trash, although the warning that something was linked to them and would be trashed as well gave me a bit of pause.

Should I leave things as they are or rename sda3 to something more meaningful? Or is there a reason I should return the two partition icons to the desktop?
More info please! Where is lupu installed, sda3? Or did you boot from CD? What does Partview report? Or Pdisk? If Gparted has problems with the drive I'd begin to suspect a bad MBR, but remember it can take a long time to scan partitions when loading. First guess is that too many partition utilities have been fooling with your partition table (part of the MBR) and the whole disk will have to be wiped to get it straight, but again, not enough info to tell at this point.
1. I run lupu from a LiveCD, with the lupusave file generally on the "b" hdd (which then is automounted as sdb2/home).

2. Pdisk /fdisk reports:
The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 30401...this is larger than 1024...and could cause problems with:
1)software that runs at boot time
2) booting and partitioning software from other OSs
Pdisk/cfdisk reports:
FATAL ERROR: Bad primary partition 2: Partition ends in the final partial cylind
Partview reports only one partition for the 0 drive - "sda3"

Gparted (in lupu) does nothing when called from the start menu. This is the case whether asking it to review sda or sdb.

3. When booting from the Utilex rescue disk and running PartedMagic, both drives are scanned, no errors reported. And I was able to "successfully" delete two partitions, create a new ntfs partition, and increase the size of the remaining one "sda3" without apparent loss of data or other issues.

However, when I tried to install Win2K to the new ntfs partition at the beginning of hdd0/sda, it reported that the partition was "unformatted or damaged". More disturbingly, it also reported all of the fat32 partitions on both hard drives with the same words, and refuses to proceed with the installation unless I allow both drives to be fdisked....

(actually, when both drives are powered up, and I try to install to hdd0/sda, it demands permission to fdisk drive "D:" , its name for partition sdb2. When I remove sda, and try to install to unallocated space in sdb, it demands to fdisk drive "C:". The issue is complicated by the fact that it seems to be confused by the two drives, which are the same model, when both are present, listing both of them as primary drive 0 on Channel 0, IIRC. I'm not keen on experimenting with my data at stake, so this plan is on hold for now)
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

User avatar
mikeslr
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon 16 Jun 2008, 21:20
Location: 500 seconds from Sol

Phantom Partitions

#1274 Post by mikeslr »

Hi otropogo,

If I recall correctly, I ran into something like that when I restructured my hard-drives. It may be caused by your SaveFile preserving images reflecting the settings you made before the change. Try Menu>Desktop>Desktop Drive icons manager, Uncheck "Tick box for drive icons on the desktop." Click OK. A reboot may be necessary. Then go back and check the box again so that it will show the icons.

Or I can be mis-recollecting, the result of wishful thinking.

mikesLr

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Phantom Partitions

#1275 Post by otropogo »

mikeslr wrote:Hi otropogo,

If I recall correctly, I ran into something like that when I restructured my hard-drives. It may be caused by your SaveFile preserving images reflecting the settings you made before the change. Try Menu>Desktop>Desktop Drive icons manager, Uncheck "Tick box for drive icons on the desktop." Click OK. A reboot may be necessary. Then go back and check the box again so that it will show the icons.

Or I can be mis-recollecting, the result of wishful thinking.

mikesLr

Hi mikesLr

Yes, that works. Thanks.

No reboot necessary, only restarting X twice. Once after unchecking the idividual icons box, to remove the individual partition icons, leaving only a single one named "drive", and a second after ticking the box for individual icons.
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Phantom Partitions

#1276 Post by otropogo »

duplicate post removed...
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

rpm/ epel repositories for Puppy?

#1277 Post by otropogo »

Have been experimenting with CentOS 6.2 on my USB3.0 laptop booting from a USBflash installation on a 2GB thumb drive.

And after asking persistently on the CentOS6 forum for help in obtaining ntfs read-write capability (neither is available natively in CentOS6) was eventually offered fairly simple directions (after the usual stern lecture and extended study list) on achieving this:

1.

Code: Select all

install epel-release 
2.

Code: Select all

yum install ntfs-3g
3.

Code: Select all

yum install ntfsprogs ntfsprogs-gnomevfs
at each command, CentOS 6.2 went online, searched and tested the nearest repositories (sfu and telus) for availability and speed, chose the one to use, downloaded the package, installed it (with pauses for user confirmation), and at the end of the sequence, allowed me to mount my 3TB Goflex desktop drive with full read-write access on the USB3.0 port.

Is there any chance one of the Puppy versions could tap into this package management system?
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

kevin bowers
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun 20 Dec 2009, 20:41

Re: strange partition behaviour

#1278 Post by kevin bowers »

otropogo wrote:
FATAL ERROR: Bad primary partition 2: Partition ends in the final partial cylind
Partview reports only one partition for the 0 drive - "sda3"

Gparted (in lupu) does nothing when called from the start menu. This is the case whether asking it to review sda or sdb.

3. When booting from the Utilex rescue disk and running PartedMagic, both drives are scanned, no errors reported. And I was able to "successfully" delete two partitions, create a new ntfs partition, and increase the size of the remaining one "sda3" without apparent loss of data or other issues.

However, when I tried to install Win2K to the new ntfs partition at the beginning of hdd0/sda, it reported that the partition was "unformatted or damaged". More disturbingly, it also reported all of the fat32 partitions on both hard drives with the same words, and refuses to proceed with the installation unless I allow both drives to be fdisked....

(actually, when both drives are powered up, and I try to install to hdd0/sda, it demands permission to fdisk drive "D:" , its name for partition sdb2. When I remove sda, and try to install to unallocated space in sdb, it demands to fdisk drive "C:". The issue is complicated by the fact that it seems to be confused by the two drives, which are the same model, when both are present, listing both of them as primary drive 0 on Channel 0, IIRC. I'm not keen on experimenting with my data at stake, so this plan is on hold for now)
I haven't a clue why all the different partition managers are giving contradictory info, nor why gparted won't run. Maybe ask some of the big boys? I've had zero troubles with gparted for half a decade.

I recommend you back up your valuable data, either on at least two other HDDs or two sets of archive-quality DVDs. This is a good idea anytime but I consider it mandatory before installing OSs or editing partitions.

Windows installers (or any others I know about) won't install to unallocated space; they need a partition in place. Some will partition the space with permission, some will repartition the entire drive without asking, some must have a partition in place before the installer starts.

If the Win2k installer is confused by the two near-identical drives, simply remove one beforehand, and reinstall it later. Simply unplugging it will do the trick if you're not screwdriver-friendly. You already found out how to redo the desktop icons in Puppy; If Windows doesn't do it automatically there is an admin tool called "drive manager" that will get Windows to recognize a new drive.

Lots of luck!

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: strange partition behaviour

#1279 Post by otropogo »

kevin bowers wrote:...

Windows installers (or any others I know about) won't install to unallocated space; they need a partition in place. Some will partition the space with permission, some will repartition the entire drive without asking, some must have a partition in place before the installer starts.

If the Win2k installer is confused by the two near-identical drives, simply remove one beforehand, and reinstall it later. Simply unplugging it will do the trick if you're not screwdriver-friendly. You already found out how to redo the desktop icons in Puppy; If Windows doesn't do it automatically there is an admin tool called "drive manager" that will get Windows to recognize a new drive.

Lots of luck!
I've got two Win2K reference books here that touch on installation issues (two more don't even mention installation). One actually mentions Partitioning, and even recommends partitioning and formatting beforehand with Partition Magic (which has never worked for me, but I do still have a disk around).

I may give that a try, and maybe Ranish, if PM doesn't work. It may be that the MBR is not to Win2K's liking, and needs to be replaced, which Ranish can sometimes accomplish.

I've already tried your second suggestion. It made no difference, except, as I mentioned IIRC, it then wanted to fdisk the C: drive. So maybe it has something against only Drive 1, not Drive0. But I don't want to risk it.

I also don't want to back up 160GB of stuff over USB2.0, never mind burning it to DVD! In the latter case, I might as well just bury it, as I'll never find time to sort it out again.



Well, let's see. realistic USB2.0 throughput is probably an average of 2MB/sec or 7GB per hour (unless you're coping thousands of small files, when it can easily sink to 700KB/s). So 160GB would take some 23 hours to copy.

Maybe I'll try it with just the one drive's 90GB of data, and remove the other drive for the install attempt. But it won't be today or tomorrow.

BTW, the desktop scheme didn't do a complete job. My sole partition on sda is still numbered "3" on both the desktop and in Pmount. Which doesn't make sense to me.

But then, I also miss MUT's ability (in earlier Puppies, not anymore) to display the size of the swap file. Pmount doesn't show it at all.
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

User avatar
bigpup
Posts: 13886
Joined: Sun 11 Oct 2009, 18:15
Location: S.C. USA

#1280 Post by bigpup »

Brown Mouse wrote:

I've updated Pmusic from 2.30 to 2.4.4-1 but now when I launch a music cd I don't get any track information(apart form the no.) or album artwork as before.
Anyone else see this?
Yes, I am seeing this too.
This may not be a good update, but only way to know is try it.

I am seeing other problems.
Like change the view, and there is no way to change back, that I can find, on some of the optional views.
I am going to post about this on the Pmusic topic.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected :shock:
YaPI(any iso installer)

Post Reply