Archpup 13.2 info

Puppy related raves and general interest that doesn't fit anywhere else
Message
Author
User avatar
rg66
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon 23 Jul 2012, 05:53
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada / Entebbe, Uganda Africa!?!

#41 Post by rg66 »

I'm trying to get pet2arch to work but keep getting

==> ERROR: PKGBUILD does not exist.
X-slacko-5b1 - X-tahr-2.0 - X-precise-2.4
[url=http://smokey01.com/rg66/]X-series repo[/url]

User avatar
rcrsn51
Posts: 13096
Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 13:50
Location: Stratford, Ontario

Re: pet-to-arch(pup) converter

#42 Post by rcrsn51 »

rameshiyer wrote: I got installed PeasyPDFv2.3 got through today's Barry's blog2 announcement.
PeasyPDF requires Ghostscript and I notice that ArchPup does not have it.

How did you get Ghostscript? By installing some printing components?

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#43 Post by mavrothal »

rg66 wrote:I'm trying to get pet2arch to work but keep getting

==> ERROR: PKGBUILD does not exist.
Just downloaded and tried again. Works file.
Are you running it on Archpup or any other puppy?
It requires to run in Archpup and /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD.proto to be present.
I guess I'll put some more checks and warnings
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

simargl8

Re: pet-to-arch(pup) converter

#44 Post by simargl8 »

mavrothal wrote:I can only try to get the horse to the water but I can certainly not force it to drink
wtf?!
And really I can't see point in converting pet package to pkg.tar.xz and installing it with pacman.
Why is that required? Who needs pet packages anyway?
Converting packages from other distribution makes sense for small distro like Slitaz
because it lacks some applications in its repository, like the ones based on gnome or kde.
Why is so hard so make proper PKGBUILD?
Looks like Puppy linux users like to invent their own rules, strange and funny ones.
Example: pet package is the only file installation format in linux world, that lacks basic thing like
information about 'what options are used in package building process'.
Next, why breaking standard desktop specifications, inventing new menu categories like Games suddenly
becomes _Fun, Office -> Personal?! etc.
rameshiyer wrote:I got installed PeasyPDFv2.3 got through today's Barry's blog2 announcement.
This PasyPDFv2.3 is very very small. Only 3.00KB !!.
Small doesn't always means the best. Take usability in your equation..
PS. Sorry for lousy English. And, sorry if you're sensitive enough and this hurts you in any way.

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

Re: pet-to-arch(pup) converter

#45 Post by mavrothal »

simargl8 wrote:
mavrothal wrote:I can only try to get the horse to the water but I can certainly not force it to drink
wtf?!
And really I can't see point in converting pet package to pkg.tar.xz and installing it with pacman.
Why is that required? Who needs pet packages anyway?
As I said, I can only try to get the horse to the water...

Now if we play the "Who needs" game, then why Arch is not good enough and we need Archpup, and why Debian or Fedora is not good enough and we need Arch, and why...?
You see where this ends?

But if you want to be more specific, some people for example may not see any serious advantage just having good old Arch running in RAM. At the end of the day they may think is just as slow or as fast, as big or as small as the original and just more buggy.

Now regarding puppy packages, yes there is a lot of junk around, but no other distro does so much, in so many ways, in so many different types of hardware, so easily and so fast, at under 150MB. This should tell you something about some puppy packages at least.

Hopefully, your English is good enough to understand that I'm not trying to hurt your fillings. I'm just pointing out a different line of thinking.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

simargl8

#46 Post by simargl8 »

No, no, you didn't understand what was my point, with Slitaz as example.
Archlinux has support for 46000 packages when you take AUR in count.
All packages (or, I'm guessing 99%) from Puppy linux repository are in Arch
repos. My question is why waste time for converting those 1% and not write
real PKGBUILD that will compile them from source.
OR, we could make our own repository and ADD those missing packages.

I'm afraid otherwise there will be too much file conflicts, wrong permissions as
someone before mentioned. And I firmly believe that pet is poor package format,
for many reasons, it's just my opinion but with good arguments.

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#47 Post by mavrothal »

But the packages you pick for inclusion are mostly gtkdialg front end bash script that usually conflict with nothing and can offer the functionality of the 70MB Gnome panel in few KB.
It is actually all the "P-apps" that make puppy so fast and functional. This and some nice compiling when things from the compatible distro become "heavy".
That's the pets you want, not glibc.

pet2arch offers the ability to include them and still have pacman keep track of everything.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

Re: pet-to-arch(pup) converter

#48 Post by stifiling »

mavrothal wrote:Now if we play the "Who needs" game, then why Arch is not good enough and we need Archpup
ArchPup is 6 times smaller than Arch Linux. ArchPup runs on an NTFS partition. ArchPup is easier to install than Arch Linux. USB booting Arch Linux is just as hard as compiling XBMC is on Puppy.

these are a few reason why "Just install normal Arch Linux" is 'not' the answer.

Same goes for puppy. "Just install normal Puppy Linux".....normal Puppy Linux is a mile behind, in a 100 yard dash against ArchPup. Arch Linux is also losing that same race, just as badly.

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#49 Post by mavrothal »

I like your enthusiasm stifiling, but I'm really impressed by the magic.

Here is an Arch package.
Abra katabra.
The pachage is 6 times smaller, runs 3 times as fast and does twice as many things as the original!
Wow!
:P
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#50 Post by stifiling »

mavrothal wrote:I like your enthusiasm stifiling, but I'm really impressed by the magic.

Here is an Arch package.
Abra katabra.
The pachage is 6 times smaller, runs 3 times as fast and does twice as many things as the original!
Wow!
:P
Sounds like you don't have a valid rebuttal.

You said, "Just install Arch Linux" 3 times already. Gave you a few reasons why that should be eliminated from your arsenal of excuses.

See if you can think of something different. "Just install Arch Linux" doesn't apply. Please do not use "Just install Arch Linux" in comparison to ArchPup. Arch Linux is just as crappy to ArchPup, as Puppy Linux is to ArchPup. "Just install Arch Linux".....doesn't work. X that one off the list.

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#51 Post by mavrothal »

stifiling wrote: Sounds like you don't have a valid rebuttal.

Oh boy,… here comes the long post… :roll:

Let me say this again: why not use Arch linux if you want to use the machine. ie have your office apps, image and video editing, video chatting, VPN, remote desktop, etc.
Have it in running a system that actually has anything of any value or importance.
Not a "production" system, but let's say "a system that you backup regularly".

For such a system Archpup may look smaller, because of the SFS compression but is actually not. Also what you are gaining in read speeds you lose in processing (unsquashing) and memory load. And of course if you install all the extra apps n your save file then the apparent size difference, disappears.
So is it "6 times smaller"?
I wish...

There is a speed difference that comes from the elimination of the security layer that is imposed to unprivileged users in Arch, but you can run as root in Arch too, if that's so important to you.
There is also a speed difference from the core libraries being loaded in RAM but this is usually only for the first time you open the app in every session, since your system is caching after that.
So, a small tick in speed vs the mother-distro.

It can run from NTFS partitions.
Actually I find this a flaw! :shock: (also for puppy)
NTFS. So primarily you are a windows user, used to be asked 5 times if you "really, truly, positively want to open this application". :lol:
And now you are granted root access in a system that you do not know very well and you are one typo/click away from messing your Windows partition (and then spend a day try to recover your "graduation pictures" :twisted: ).
Besides NTFS already implies that it is a hobby/test OS :roll: and is not really used
So a mark to the mother-distro on NTFS!

Installs in USB easier. Check! (Just tell me why puppy's universal installer is not there…)

Any limitations of Archpup vs Arch?
Will not run all the Arch programs due to the held back packages.
May have bugs because of the modified packages that had limited use and thus testing.
Aufs (union) file systems have some limitations. (Also the luck of xattr and acl support)

So is it "miles ahead"? No.
Is it ahead at all?
It depends on your point of view, but more important if you intent to use the system for anything more than playing with it for few hours or a week.

Now about the "miles ahead" of puppy.
Is it faster? No.
Is it smaller? No.
Does it have more features OOTB? No.
Is it easier to install and use from the GUI? No.
Can it be installed in a wider range of hardware? No.
Does it have more apps? No (to the Ubuntu or slackware repos).
Does it have better audited packages? No (if you compare what is in the pupplet repos and not what is flying :P in the forum).
Does it have a better package managing infrastructure? By far.

So is it "miles ahead"? No.
Is it ahead at all?
It depends on your point of view… And if we are talking "hobby builds", the point of view can vary widely…

OK then,… but can it be really ahead?
It can try, by combining the best feature of both OSs.
Arch package manager and packages - Puppy apps, wizards and scripts.
Then a lot of wide testing and bug squashing and you are almost there. 8)

Can we go back to Archpup now and forget Who's on first? :P
Last edited by mavrothal on Tue 12 Feb 2013, 05:38, edited 1 time in total.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

User avatar
rg66
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon 23 Jul 2012, 05:53
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada / Entebbe, Uganda Africa!?!

#52 Post by rg66 »

mavrothal wrote: Just downloaded and tried again. Works file.
Are you running it on Archpup or any other puppy?
It requires to run in Archpup and /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD.proto to be present.
I guess I'll put some more checks and warnings
Ya, I'm running it from Archpup with xfce. I copied PKGBUILD.proto to the working directory and same thing. It must be something I'm doing wrong.
X-slacko-5b1 - X-tahr-2.0 - X-precise-2.4
[url=http://smokey01.com/rg66/]X-series repo[/url]

simargl8

#53 Post by simargl8 »

Some of the reasons Puppy is widely considered as just a toy OS, is because it has 300 items in the menu,
most of which you would never start, so their purpose from standard user POV, is to make you feel lost :lol:
mavrothal wrote:Any limitations of Archpup vs Arch?
Will not run all the Arch programs due to the held back packages.
May have bugs because of the modified packages that had limited use and thus testing.
What programs it will not run?
I haven't found single one.
May have bugs?
Did you see any of those bugs. Or you just assume that, because it's not old enough to must have some flaws.
On the other side having many developers and many users, testers etc. doesn't mean bug-free software or OS. Take abiword from the latest Ubuntu as example.
I'm adding pet2arch script in respect for your time. Is 0.1 latest version?

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#54 Post by mavrothal »

simargl8 wrote: What programs it will not run?
I haven't found single one.
May have bugs?
Did you see any of those bugs. Or you just assume that, because it's not old enough to must have some flaws.
I do not think that anybody tested the 45000 packages in Arch but I bet on it.
Pango dependent apps come to mind.
Hardware detection and display setup is another usual issue related to udev/systemd.
I can appreciate the risk vs benefit factor, but I think I would at least wait a month or so with the same version to declare it bug free.
simargl8 wrote:On the other side having many developers and many users, testers etc. doesn't mean bug-free software or OS. Take abiword from the latest Ubuntu as example.
That is a problem when you want to be bleeding edge or rolling. You sacrifice stability (For that there is Debian).
But more testers do make a better more solid release specially when you do not have the release dates set 3 years in advance and you must release no matter what...
simargl8 wrote:I'm adding pet2arch script in respect for your time. Is 0.1 latest version?
Thanks.
v0.3 is the latest.
Last edited by mavrothal on Mon 11 Feb 2013, 16:02, edited 2 times in total.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#55 Post by mavrothal »

rg66 wrote: Ya, I'm running it from Archpup with xfce. I copied PKGBUILD.proto to the working directory and same thing. It must be something I'm doing wrong.
An old trick to find out is to change the first line of the script from

Code: Select all

#!/bin/bash
to

Code: Select all

#!/bin/bash -x
and roll back the terminal.
Will tell you exactly what is doing and where the problem might be
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#56 Post by mavrothal »

Archpup 13.2.1 has been released and has its own thread.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#57 Post by stifiling »

mav,

i used your frisbee package in the lxde desktop. i was having a hard time getting xpupsay to work. the folder /lib/dhcpcd is in the main.sfs at /usr/lib/dhcpcd, so i moved it over there. there's also the script 'dhcpcd-run-hooks' in that same location. i pulled that file out of peebee's precise-frisbee.pet...and symlinked the files in /usr/libexec to the ones in /usr/lib/dhcpcd. and was able to get xpupsay to do it's network announcements after doing so.

Not exactly important, but i also modded the '99' files in /usr/lib/dhcpcd/dhcpcd-hooks...to use 'notify-send' rather than xpupsay.

simargl

#58 Post by simargl »

Hi stif, is xpupsay using gtkdialog-splash or it's something new ... again :D

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#59 Post by mavrothal »

stifiling wrote:mav,

i used your frisbee package in the lxde desktop. i was having a hard time getting xpupsay to work. the folder /lib/dhcpcd is in the main.sfs at /usr/lib/dhcpcd, so i moved it over there. there's also the script 'dhcpcd-run-hooks' in that same location. i pulled that file out of peebee's precise-frisbee.pet...and symlinked the files in /usr/libexec to the ones in /usr/lib/dhcpcd. and was able to get xpupsay to do it's network announcements after doing so.

Not exactly important, but i also modded the '99' files in /usr/lib/dhcpcd/dhcpcd-hooks...to use 'notify-send' rather than xpupsay.
I actually think that xpupsay is a bit intrusive and better remove it!
I think the rewin's frisbee 3 version is much more integrate'able into the main stream. Hopefully I'll find some time to see how it works in Archpup (or maybe peebee does it)
If simargl patches dhcpcd with the dropwait patch then there is a good chance to have a small and decent network manager in Archpup. :)
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

simargl

#60 Post by simargl »

What I see is that this patch adds some waiting time in seconds, so no problems if you need
that dropwait timer I will patch dhcpcd source. One problem is that this relates to version
dhcpcd-5.2.9, latest is 5.6.4, but patch is not too big so it would probably be possible to
adjust it for newer version.

Locked