SlackBones x86_64

For talk and support relating specifically to Puppy derivatives
Message
Author
2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#41 Post by 2byte »

@jamesbond

Hey, no problem. This is a prototype , right?

A couple more questions, if you don’t mind;
I noticed that pmount from Fatdog is included, even though there is no mention of it that I have seen. Are there any other Puppy/Fatdog specific utilities in there like resize-save-file etc.?

Lastly, is it safe to assume the boot parameters from Fatdog 6.11 also apply to Slackbones?

Just so you know, I’m quite enthusiastic about Slackbones. It’s like a bare-bones Fatdog on steroids, and I’m a huge fan of Fatdog!

Many thanks to Q5sys and jamesbond, and anyone else involved.


User avatar
Ted Dog
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed 14 Sep 2005, 02:35
Location: Heart of Texas

Re: Great job

#42 Post by Ted Dog »

jamesbond wrote:
Ted Dog wrote: This version has already has been remastered and burned as a pure UDF blu-ray bootable puppy. Which is a first. All other puppies that could boot had to be a nasty hybrid of old-iso and UDF that only booted a few versions of Wary. Likewise the mount program provided mounted and read UDF directly, nicely done.
Out of topic, but this is very interesting. I know of no program, open source or otherwise, that will create a pure UDF bootable disc. How did you do that? Did you use mkudffs and then craft your own Eltorito boot sector by hand? Does it work only on EFI machines, or does it work with BIOS machines too?
growisofs: remove -D -R add -iso_level=3 and -udf everything else stays. I posted the code else where on the forum. 8) yes EFI boot loader and standard bootloader can exist on the same disc-image, but its a order thing that redhat worked out but with confusing code. BTW UDF can be burned on CD or DVD as well as Blu-ray disks, its just a format. I burn UDF to R/W-DVDs for most testing since I have so many. :roll:

is there code to rewrap sfs into intrd. Still on a learning curve with this method of running a puppy version.

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#43 Post by 01micko »

Q5sys

I have uploaded the main ISO image to the smokey01 server. You may want to add a link in the main post, and a mention to include jamesbond's mount fix to puplet builders.


slackbones-v1.0-x86_64.iso

md5 checksum (same as orig)

Cheers!
Last edited by 01micko on Sun 27 Jan 2013, 00:26, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#44 Post by Q5sys »

2byte wrote:Q5sys
This is a significant contribution to the Puppy community to say the least. Slackbones is impressive. I was surprised by the 309 mb download until I saw that it includes 200 mb of 'extras' like the kernel source and devx along with the other add-ons.
Make sure you give JamesBond props! :P
2byte wrote:@jamesbond

Hey, no problem. This is a prototype , right?
A couple more questions, if you don’t mind;
I noticed that pmount from Fatdog is included, even though there is no mention of it that I have seen. Are there any other Puppy/Fatdog specific utilities in there like resize-save-file etc.?

Lastly, is it safe to assume the boot parameters from Fatdog 6.11 also apply to Slackbones?

Just so you know, I’m quite enthusiastic about Slackbones. It’s like a bare-bones Fatdog on steroids, and I’m a huge fan of Fatdog!

Many thanks to Q5sys and jamesbond, and anyone else involved.
JamesBond will have to chime in here, but from what I remember from our many discussions a while back while we were working on this... is that part of it is/was going to be the base for the next (610) release of FatDog. But thats not to say that FatDog is specifically based on this entirely. FD610 has a older Kernel than Slackbones.
Slackbones was designed to be at the very cutting edge, yet as bareboned as possible.
A newer kernel is availbale, but we havent released it yet.
The Custom Slackbones Repo is in Alpha stage right now, everything is working fine at the moment on my local network. I havent shifted it over to my online server to put it through its paces at this point. Still trying work in some extra features that meeki and I are working on.
v2 of slackbones might include the repo... it all depends on when I decide im comfortable with its performance and confident that it'll scale up to anyone using it.

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#45 Post by Q5sys »

01micko wrote:Q5sys

I have uploaded the main ISO image to the smokey01 server. You may want to add a link in the main post, and a mention to include jamesbond's mount fix to puplet builders.


slackbones-v1.0-x86_64.iso

md5 checksum (same as orig)

Cheers!
Im uploading to sourceforge as well... when I get it uploaded... i'll throw that link and your link in the first post.
Thanks for the mirror.

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#46 Post by jamesbond »

This is a prototype , right?
As in? :D
I noticed that pmount from Fatdog is included, even though there is no mention of it that I have seen. Are there any other Puppy/Fatdog specific utilities in there like resize-save-file etc.?
1. Drive icons
2. Save session (at shutdown)
3. Pmount
4. Filemnt
4. Remaster
Lastly, is it safe to assume the boot parameters from Fatdog 6.11 also apply to Slackbones?
Yes.
Just so you know, I’m quite enthusiastic about Slackbones. It’s like a bare-bones Fatdog on steroids, and I’m a huge fan of Fatdog!
Thanks. Slackbone is Fatdog's barebones :)
is there code to rewrap sfs into intrd. Still on a learning curve with this method of running a puppy version.
If you click an initrd (or initrd.gz), it will be un-packed in /tmp. Put any SFS you want and then click the re-pack script. If you want to see how all these work, look into the /usr/sbin/filemnt script.
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#47 Post by 2byte »

As in? :D
Potentially, if not already, the best bare bones Puppy ever 8)


User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#48 Post by 01micko »

Convert PETS to TXZ

Since you can't install .PET packages in Slackbones I made a handy utility so that you can! I haven't tested that they install yet but I don't see any problems. I built the TXZ package with the utility itself.

http://01micko.no-ip.org/testing/pet2tx ... ch_PET.txz

Hope this helps! (translate: "hope it works!")

Install:

Code: Select all

/sbin/installpkg pet2txz-0.2-noarch_PET.txz
EDIT: fixed a minor bug and also uses /sbin/makepkg if available
Last edited by 01micko on Fri 01 Feb 2013, 03:08, edited 1 time in total.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#49 Post by Q5sys »

01micko wrote:Since you can't install .PET packages in Slackbones I made a handy utility so that you can! I haven't tested that they install yet but I don't see any problems. I built the TXZ package with the utility itself.

http://01micko.no-ip.org/testing/pet2tx ... ch_PET.txz

Hope this helps! (translate: "hope it works!")

Install:

Code: Select all

/sbin/installpkg pet2txz-0.1-noarch_PET.txz
Yea that was actually by design. lol
Im sure some people will want to install Pets, so this will be helpful for them.
As for official releases, packages will be in TXZ format and not PET format. Since this is all new and shiny, I wanted to avoid the eventual conflict of people installing pet packages.
The official repo will contain only TXZ packages which will be confirmed to work and have no issues.
Un-officially, people can do whatever they want. But support outside mainline packages will be limited.

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#50 Post by 01micko »

Q5sys wrote:Yea that was actually by design. lol
..and I agree with that design!

It does install, but with a warning..

Code: Select all

# /sbin/installpkg pet2txz-0.1-noarch_PET.txz
Verifying package pet2txz-0.1-noarch_PET.txz.
Installing package pet2txz-0.1-noarch_PET.txz:
PACKAGE DESCRIPTION:
WARNING:  Package has not been created with 'makepkg'
Package pet2txz-0.1-noarch_PET.txz installed.

# pet2txz
Usage:
pet2txz somepet.pet -- produces a Slackware .txz file
pet2txz -v -- states version
pet2txz -v -- shows this help
NOTE: "PET" is clearly appended to the packagename in every instance, that is by design . And of course "USE AT OWN RISK".
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#51 Post by Q5sys »

01micko wrote:
Q5sys wrote:Yea that was actually by design. lol
..and I agree with that design!

It does install, but with a warning..

Code: Select all

# /sbin/installpkg pet2txz-0.1-noarch_PET.txz
Verifying package pet2txz-0.1-noarch_PET.txz.
Installing package pet2txz-0.1-noarch_PET.txz:
PACKAGE DESCRIPTION:
WARNING:  Package has not been created with 'makepkg'
Package pet2txz-0.1-noarch_PET.txz installed.

# pet2txz
Usage:
pet2txz somepet.pet -- produces a Slackware .txz file
pet2txz -v -- states version
pet2txz -v -- shows this help
Im glad you made it... it will help some people who just want to make a simple system for themselves. I've seen too many people come into the IRC channel for help running slacko and wondering why a pet package doesnt work or why other programs are suddenly broken... only to find out after talking to them it was a pet package from a v4.0 puppy. This is exacerbated by the fact that Pets have no distinction between ones made for Presice (debian based), or slacko (slackware based).
I think everyone can agree our package format system is a complete and utter mess.

The other reason the plan is to stick with offical txz packages in the repo has to do with the eventual coming Slackbones Official repo.
And the eventual goal of making Slackbones into a rolling release. For official releases, PETS add a possible fault point, which I'd like to avoid. For personal systems though outside the mainline release... Pets will be helpful to some users.

the whole rolling release thing will take quite a while to get right. I've figured out the technical process for it to work even with a frugal install, but turning theory into practice... well that's the challange. :P

rdog
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2010, 20:47
Location: Quesnel, BC, Canada

no keyboard at console

#52 Post by rdog »

Hi,
I am trying Slackbones and noticed that when using an encrypted save file my USB keyboard is not functioning such that I can enter the password for the save file while booting. The keyboard works in the grub menu but by the time the password prompt appears it is not.

I haven't had any issues before with other puppy versions so... in case this is something to fix I figured I would mention it.

Thanks,
Rob

slackfan
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun 29 Mar 2009, 09:31

#53 Post by slackfan »

Yes!

Hi

It also was my question:
koulaxizis wrote:Can i work a 32bit distro on this?
and I did see the answer of Iguleder (look at his own home page and Shahor Black distro).

I have a laptop with AMD64 but I also have ill eyes and need a better screen as the laptop give me... so I use mainly a older PC but with high resolution screen. ok, I would be able to connect that screen also on the laptop with better technical performances as the old PC but I always have in this case the empty screen of the laptop between keyboard and high resolution screen. it is bad as long term solution... and I know no way to eliminate the build in screen from laptop (4..5 years old acer emachine).

so I find I need a distro available in 2 or 3 forms:

- for i686
- for AMD64
- and (only perhaps) for i386.

exactly the same scope of applications because I will not change my habit changing the PC (it is problematic enough with changing keyboard!)...

it is possible in typical full installed distro like Debian, Slackware, Mandriva, Ubuntu etc.

not in Puppy :x

not in Shahor :?

why not? because each hobby coder felt the need to present something different by nature of what was done before...

Shahor would perhaps be a maximal solution for me as I absolutely will promote the libre software original made by or for GNU and beneficiant approval of GNU (this is also a weakness of Puppy: not enough consideration for GNU software). but I need a way to se my usual news video on the most important European TV channels. black is not enough as permanent state of evolution (I often use SliTaz base started as ISO using Grub2. SliTaz also offers Libre Linux but not the other needed Icecat, gnash, as the old Puppy-Puplet made by Iguleder from Debian did offer in the past :wink: etc. - I continue to often use it, as we did not become some new one :lol: !)

And I hate OS where windows open themselves as well as bars beeing masked, hidden by other applications as it is usually the case with the bad wbar (a good bar has to be where each new line begins after hitting RETURN, left in Occidental, right in Semitic language and only Asiatic languages write from top to bottom...) : It is not Linux but only distraction. I have no need of save file or front ends to fill up the scripts beeing in /etc, /root or /home/myself!

Kind regards

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

#54 Post by Iguleder »

slackfan wrote:why not? because each hobby coder felt the need to present something different by nature of what was done before...
There are many reasons to support less architectures:
- It saves time: when you update a package, you need to compile it only once. In my case, I only build it for x86_64, so I can use my own machine for compiling.
- It's cheaper: no need to buy machines of different architectures or make heavy use of virtualization. For example, I don't have the money to buy a smartphone or some expensive ARM development board to port my distro to ARMv7.
- The desire to stop promoting the use of legacy architectures which pull back software for others. For example, in the case of Windows, most software is available for i686 but not x86_64.
- If you request an i386 port today, who knows what other users might want - someone might request an ARMv4, PowerPC or Itanium port tomorrow. This is a big burden for developers.

And besides, you can use a x86_64 distro to do x86 development, using chroot. That's what I do when I want to make something for Puppy - I just chroot into a Puppy (different one every time :lol:) from my x86_64 distro - I get my favorite window manager and familiar programs, but my work is 100% compatible.

EDIT: Q5sys, you're doing great work here! I totally agree with your decision to focus on x86_64.
[url=http://dimakrasner.com/]My homepage[/url]
[url=https://github.com/dimkr]My GitHub profile[/url]

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#55 Post by 2byte »

Q5sys or Jamesbond

My /usr/lib64 in the sb64_devx.sfs is not correct. There are many directories that should not exist, from /libasound.la to /libz.a. The corresponding *.la & *.a files are inside of these directories instead of /lib64.

It kind of makes compiling anything a wee bit difficult.

Is this a OS build issue or is my devx file corrupt?


User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#56 Post by Q5sys »

2byte wrote:Q5sys or Jamesbond

My /usr/lib64 in the sb64_devx.sfs is not correct. There are many directories that should not exist, from /libasound.la to /libz.a. The corresponding *.la & *.a files are inside of these directories instead of /lib64.

It kind of makes compiling anything a wee bit difficult.

Is this a OS build issue or is my devx file corrupt?
Im on the road right now and dont have access to my home machine to dig into this. can you crank out a MD5 for the devx file? I'll compare it to the ones I have on my machine. its possible I bundled a bad one when I made the ISO.
I would have hoped if that happened though someone else would have noticed it.

As for the other comments above... Ill comment on those when I get home and have time (hopefully tomorrow).

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#57 Post by 2byte »

Q5sys wrote:I would have hoped if that happened though someone else would have noticed it
Yeah, that's why I wonder if it's my file here. Here's my MD5

Code: Select all

fe68c54de11ef4ca55feb52a2bf8db3f  ./sb64_devx.sfs
I'll download again and double check it. Will report back.


2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#58 Post by 2byte »

I checked both isos at slackbones.org & smokey01.com
Both have the same MD5 as mine and a visual check of the contents shows the same issue.


User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#59 Post by Q5sys »

2byte wrote:I checked both isos at slackbones.org & smokey01.com
Both have the same MD5 as mine and a visual check of the contents shows the same issue.
2byte wrote:I checked both isos at slackbones.org & smokey01.com
Both have the same MD5 as mine and a visual check of the contents shows the same issue.
I checked my slackbones development directory on my home system... I have multiple versions of the devx, based on all the alpha versions Jamesbond and I were working on.
I see the same thing in some of them, and not in others. The one thats bundled in the ISO has this issue.
We were working on a updated release right now, so this will be fixed with that. I'll repack the 1.0 release ISO at the same time.
The next release 1.2 will have a newer kernel and a few other tweaks, but nothing massively different.

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#60 Post by 01micko »

Just a note that I have now deleted the slackbones-V1.0 ISO image from the smokey01 server. An upgrade is imminent anyway so it should not affect anyone.
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

Post Reply