Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Tue 16 Sep 2014, 01:15
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
what ever happened to .pup packages
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 1 [10 Posts]  
Author Message
NeroVance


Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 149
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri 12 Oct 2012, 21:51    Post subject:  what ever happened to .pup packages
Subject description: excuse my ignorance
 

I'm fairly curious about why the old dotpup package format was replaced with dotpet. From what I could remember, while dotpup used zip for a container (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) it had a number of nice additions, such as md5 inside the package itself, and one could include a nice installer script.

While some could see that as being like some form of installer rather than a package, I liked the idea of what I viewed as a "smart" package. And with some talk by members of the community about wanting a different packaging format, I kinda wonder if there are aspects of dotpup that may have been nice that could be incorporated, perhaps in some form of puplet package manager.

If Puppy had dotpup, then dotpet, perhaps maybe someone will make a package format called dotdog Wink.

_________________
Secret Missing Hidden Puppian for almost 5 years. - Nero "Jay" Vance
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
darkcity


Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 2452
Location: near here

PostPosted: Sat 13 Oct 2012, 19:52    Post subject:  

Pets have the md5 and install scripts-
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/pets

Looks like Pet packages have better dependency handling than Pup packages,
see 2.14 release notes http://www.puppylinux.com/download/release-2.14.htm

woof woof Idea

_________________
helping Wiki for help | IF SendSpace link = "dead" THEN PM me ("up file to http://meownplanet.net/")
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
NeroVance


Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 149
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat 13 Oct 2012, 20:44    Post subject:  

Why thank you darkcity. That cleared it up pretty swell.
Though I will admit, I wonder how one could make a dotpet containing subpackages for different archs, since people are getting puppy on ARM and the like.

Since I noticed much of the packages that one would use, tend to be on this here forum, I wonder what would be best to deal with that? Have people post pets for each puppy, or some form of quasipackage that would contain info on where to get (via wget) packages, depending on the puppy version, and system arch.

could be either plaintext, or some form of XML to handle markup for this quasipet. For purposes of clarity, I'll refer to this as dotdog in the code below:

Code:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<dotdog version="1.0" />
<pup version="wary">
   <package arch="arm" src="http://www.example.com/address-to-dotpet-here.pet" />
   <package arch="x86" src="http://www.example.com/address-to-dotpet-here.pet" />
   <package arch="x86-64" src="http://www.example.com/address-to-dotpet-here.pet" />
</pup>
<pup version="412">
   <package arch="arm" src="http://www.example.com/address-to-dotpet-here.pet" />
   <package arch="x86" src="http://www.example.com/address-to-dotpet-here.pet" />
   <package arch="x86-64" src="http://www.example.com/address-to-dotpet-here.pet" />
</pup>
<pup version="slacko">
   <package arch="arm" src="http://www.example.com/address-to-dotpet-here.pet" />
   <package arch="x86" src="http://www.example.com/address-to-dotpet-here.pet" />
   <package arch="x86-64" src="http://www.example.com/address-to-dotpet-here.pet" />
</pup>


then again, this may be good for another topic if people think it could be useful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
amigo

Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 2247

PostPosted: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 03:35    Post subject:  

One package with multiple arches is a bad idea -period, full-stop. Any package worth creating is also worth creating in all its' glory for each arch you intend to support.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
technosaurus


Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 4351

PostPosted: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 04:18    Post subject:  

\you break it out into common and arch-dependent

mybinary (a metapackage for)
mybinary-common
gtk2-common
mybinary-$ARCH

mybinary-$ARCH would have dependencies like:
libgtk2-$ARCH

_________________
Web Programming - Pet Packaging 100 & 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
NeroVance


Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 149
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 10:46    Post subject:  

amigo wrote:
One package with multiple arches is a bad idea -period, full-stop. Any package worth creating is also worth creating in all its' glory for each arch you intend to support.


I kinda hear you on that one. But what I'm talking about isn't a package for multiarch, but a file that would be used in a package manager to automatically download and install the package for it's arch, and puppy.

technosaurus wrote:
You break it out into common and arch-dependent

mybinary (a metapackage for)
mybinary-common
gtk2-common
mybinary-$ARCH

mybinary-$ARCH would have dependencies like:
libgtk2-$ARCH


Makes pretty good sense. But I do wonder about a metapackage involving different puppies. People seem to use Wary, Racy, Slacko, Lucid (I think), 412, Retro, etc. It's possible that one might need a separate package for these. But then again, if you list dependencies you could obtain them via PPM, but many libraries are posted here, or hosted on someones FTP or HTTP server.

And perhaps there may be software that may be less stable and usable on different kernels. Then again, for that one could use $KERN

again, this is all just my two cents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
darkcity


Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 2452
Location: near here

PostPosted: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 12:20    Post subject:  

Can the main repository handle links? That that way if something changes your can just change the link.

Im still not sure why having a mutli arch package handler would be beneficial? Wouldnt it lead to people going to the repository, selecting a package, then if its not available for there arch it would have to say "sorry not available".

The main problem, as I see it, is that maintaining a repository and testing on lots of Pups takes a lot of work. And not necessarily the sort of work people want to do voluntarily.

mikeslr had commented on this here+
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=80680

_________________
helping Wiki for help | IF SendSpace link = "dead" THEN PM me ("up file to http://meownplanet.net/")
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
NeroVance


Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 149
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 12:58    Post subject:  

darkcity wrote:
Can the main repository handle links? That that way if something changes your can just change the link.

Im still not sure why having a mutli arch package handler would be beneficial? Wouldnt it lead to people going to the repository, selecting a package, then if its not available for there arch it would have to say "sorry not available".

The main problem, as I see it, is that maintaining a repository and testing on lots of Pups takes a lot of work. And not necessarily the sort of work people want to do voluntarily.

mikeslr had commented on this here+
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=80680


I hear ya. But what I'm talking about isn't simply a central package manager (ala PPM), I'm referring to when people post dotpet files on this very forum. If one could decrease the amount that people have to look through from perhaps 1 for each kernel and arch to 1 file that is basically just a bunch of links to those same packages, and have a package installer determining what puppy it is, what kernel it has and what arch it's on automatically, and using that information to install the specific version of the dotpet.

And as it is a set of links, all it takes to replace a dead link, is to re-upload the package to another server, and swap the first set of links with a new one, which includes the new package link.

And yes, if it does not find a package for your puppy/kernel/arch, it should tell you such, that way a simple click on this "package" which might be perhaps only a couple Kilobytes could tell you if it's available.

anyway, my two cents again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
technosaurus


Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 4351

PostPosted: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 14:56    Post subject:  

You could always do package-$DISTRO-$ARCH, or compile on the lowest versioned system, such that it will work in all distros. For instance build against gtk+-2.10 and glib-2.12 and ssl-0.98. How do you think libflashplayer works in all distros?
_________________
Web Programming - Pet Packaging 100 & 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
NeroVance


Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 149
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon 15 Oct 2012, 11:21    Post subject:  

technosaurus wrote:
You could always do package-$DISTRO-$ARCH, or compile on the lowest versioned system, such that it will work in all distros. For instance build against gtk+-2.10 and glib-2.12 and ssl-0.98. How do you think libflashplayer works in all distros?


technosaurus wrote:
How do you think libflashplayer works in all distros?


Mind blown. Newer libraries do offer new functionality and possible stability and performance increases.

package-$DISTRO-$ARCH could work very well... internally.
I'm talking about the idea of rather than looking for the "package-$DISTRO-$ARCH" for your system, downloading a file that would be a list of "package-$DISTRO-$ARCH" files, including additional links if they go down.

That way one-click install among many puppies Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 1 [10 Posts]  
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0930s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0191s) ][ GZIP on ]