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 22 Jul 2014, 13:36
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
The journey to Archpup..
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 3 of 6 [79 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
BarryK
Puppy Master


Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 7047
Location: Perth, Western Australia

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 08:15    Post subject:  

I now have Arch pup booting to the desktop:

http://bkhome.org/blog2/?viewDetailed=00179

_________________
http://bkhome.org/news/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
BarryK
Puppy Master


Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 7047
Location: Perth, Western Australia

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 08:28    Post subject:  

The question was raised above about another project named "Archpup", and why have I ignored it.

Well, a few reasons...

1. Not Woof
I am only dealing with Woof and puppies built with Woof. As I understand it, the other Archpup does not use Woof. Or rather, just the 'roofs-skeleton' is taken out of Woof and other scripts are used to build the distro.

2. No PPM
Woof has the Puppy Package Manager. Actually, this is in rootfs-skeleton, but the other Archpup does not use it, instead uses pacman, the Arch Linux package manager.

3. Diffferent UI
The packages and UI are very different from normal puppies. No JWM, no ROX-Filer.

No. 3 is a minor point, as puplets can be built with different packages for the UI. But, it contributes toward something that is somewhat different from a "puppy".

At what point do you say, hey, this is a different distro? Simargl describes it as a variant of Puppy, well that it is.

Anyway, it is not a Woof-built Puppy, so is off the radar for me.

Good luck to simargl though. His distro has it's own site and is really a fork, that is based on some of the Puppy initrd and skeleton infrastructure. So, it stands alone as it's own distro.

_________________
http://bkhome.org/news/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
stifiling

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 388

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 10:24    Post subject:  

BarryK wrote:
Anyway, it is not a Woof-built Puppy, so is off the radar for me.


64-bit is another Puppy I was also hoping to see in Woof. Is this build of FatDog64, another 'Woof fork', for one reason or another, an exception to the rule?

FatDog64 falls under the exact same category as ArchPup, as far as not being Woof-built...yet, it made it to Barry's Blog??....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
anikin

Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 450

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 11:17    Post subject:  

BarryK wrote:
I now have Arch pup booting to the desktop:

http://bkhome.org/blog2/?viewDetailed=00179

A true JWM/Rox based Archpup - this is really, welcome news. Built by someone, who knows what Puppy Linux is all about and what the community needs. But will it last? Can I hope, Barry will not screw his followers on a whim and not migrate his project to a newly created forum? Then abandon it there in favor of debasing other devs' work and dragging their name through the mud? Only time will tell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
stifiling

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 388

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 11:33    Post subject:  

anikin wrote:
BarryK wrote:
I now have Arch pup booting to the desktop:

http://bkhome.org/blog2/?viewDetailed=00179

A true JWM/Rox based Archpup - this is really, welcome news. Built by someone, who knows what Puppy Linux is all about and what the community needs. But will it last? Can I hope, Barry will not screw his followers on a whim and not migrate his project to a newly created forum? Then abandon it there in favor of debasing other devs' work and dragging their name through the mud? Only time will tell.


ok...so you're defending the fact that ArchPup was ignored for months and months and months....by the father of Puppy Linux?

It's kind of like dad built a paper plane 5 years ago, but it didn't quite fly right. So you fix it and say..."Hey pops, look at how high this fly's!!" And he totally ignores you, and rebuilds his paper plane that he's left broken for 5 years.

I don't see how you can defend that. FatDog64 got a big THUMBS UP!! and ArchPup got completely ignored. When they both have the same amount of differences, and both are woof forks.

It's kind of like you ignored one of your kids, and praised another one for both doing the exact same thing. Like simargl said...it appears as though Barry doesn't like him.

You can only feel attacked and unwanted for so long before you finally decide to.......leave the house.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Chili Dog


Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 96

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 12:40    Post subject:  

Barry, could you please use simargl's idea to have pacman working on ArchPup? I'm sure that if there ever is a community of people using your ArchPup, that is the number one thing they would want.

Not to be rude, but sometimes the PPM is useless. Look at Slacko 5.3.3 - there was hardly any packages at all, because Slackware is a source-based distro, just like Arch is, mostly.

Instead of having two or more "Arch Pups" kicking around by different authors, I ask that you work to make one unified version, that can shock the world.

What do you say guys? Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
stifiling

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 388

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 13:08    Post subject:  

Chili Dog wrote:
Barry, could you please use simargl's idea to have pacman working on ArchPup? I'm sure that if there ever is a community of people using your ArchPup, that is the number one thing they would want.

Not to be rude, but sometimes the PPM is useless. Look at Slacko 5.3.3 - there was hardly any packages at all, because Slackware is a source-based distro, just like Arch is, mostly.

Instead of having two or more "Arch Pups" kicking around by different authors, I ask that you work to make one unified version, that can shock the world.

What do you say guys? Very Happy


that sounds like an excellent idea to me. i was wishing this collaboration could have happened.....4 months ago. Barry, simargl, mavrothal, 01micko, technosaurus, etc.....are all smart dudes. And have what it takes to shut the whole game down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jamesbond

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2042
Location: The Blue Marble

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 16:35    Post subject:  

Barry does as Barry wishes. He often re-creates and re-does existing tools in his own unique way. Sometimes he bases his work on existing tools, sometimes he creates something from scratch (e.g. SNS).

It is not like Barry took anything from simargl's archpup without acknowledging it. Barry instead choose to re-invent the archpup wheel - choosing not to look at existing implementation. If Barry chooses to spend his days and nights trying to figure out what simargl and others have investigated - and on the way, he independently finds the same result as simargl - why all the sour grapes about this need for "acknowledgement" ? Confused

_________________
Fatdog64, Slacko and Puppeee user. Puppy user since 2.13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
stifiling

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 388

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 17:27    Post subject:  

jamesbond wrote:
why all the sour grapes about this need for "acknowledgement" ? Confused


not the need for acknowledgement, it's the 'effort' that was put in, to 'deliberately' ignore it.

you're choosing to 'defend' as well, by choosing to 'view' it as the need for acknowledgement...rather than a blatant ignore.

If Barry's post was made in a new thread...it would've been viewed totally different.

You had to dig deep, past a lot of ArchPup threads, to find this one.

i'm taking it as meaning "F You"...and if that's what being said...Say IT!! So there's no misunderstanding. I wouldn't think that's what's being said.....but it sure does look that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Q5sys


Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 1047

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 17:52    Post subject:  

Chili Dog wrote:
Barry, could you please use simargl's idea to have pacman working on ArchPup? I'm sure that if there ever is a community of people using your ArchPup, that is the number one thing they would want.

Not to be rude, but sometimes the PPM is useless. Look at Slacko 5.3.3 - there was hardly any packages at all, because Slackware is a source-based distro, just like Arch is, mostly.

Instead of having two or more "Arch Pups" kicking around by different authors, I ask that you work to make one unified version, that can shock the world.

What do you say guys? Very Happy


Arch isnt a source based Distro. Where did you hear that it was? Slackware can be either depending on the admin of the machine and/or network you're getting packages/updates from. You can use slapt-get for binarys and slackbuild for source.

Anyway moving along... As for PPM over Pacman. Yes I consider pacman to be superior to PPM, but I doubt pacman will ever be accepted as mainline puppy. Just as how I feel that slapt-get will never be accepted as mainline either. Even if puppy repos were created, I just dont see it being worked in as the official package manager. That is an entire separate conversation, so I wont derail the thread by putting it here.

I dont quite understand the whole thing about acknowledgement thing. I developed and released AttackPup in May of 2010, it is to my knowledge the ONLY puppy put out by this community with a focus on security and penetration testing. Has Barry mentioned once in his Blog? No. Do I care? No. JamesBond and I have developed Slackbones64 and released it on Jan 1st of this year. Has Barry mentioned it in his Blog? No. Do I care? No.
I'm not developing just so I can be awknowledged by Barry. If he notices it great, If he thinks its worthy of a mention, that's awesome. But am I entitled to it? No. Barry's Blog is about Barry's development work with the occasional news about things developers are doing that relates to what he's doing or as it relates to the official releases. Barry's Blog is not a distrowatch information source for all the puppy releases. There have been hundreds of Pupplets created over the years, We maybe have even reached the 1000 mark, how many have been mentioned by Barry on his blog... very few.
Barry has made it quite clear what he feels defines a main line Puppy release. 1) Built from Woof, 2) Uses the PPM, 3) JWM/ROX. Using that mold, none of my releases fit into what Barry would consider a main line Puppy release, so if he wants to consider them a fork, thats fine.
As I chip away at making a 64bit puppy arch release, it'll probably also end up in the 'puppy-fork' catagory, and as such I probably wont get mentioned in Barry's Blog then either. And ya know what... there's nothing wrong with that.

Opensource development is never quite linear. Sometimes forks get merged back into upstream, sometimes they dont. Sometimes ideas are taken from forks and worked into mainstream, sometimes they arent. Sometimes a fork has a subfork and that subfork gets worked into mainstream while the original fork doesnt. It's all up to the upstream mainline developers. In our case... that's Barry. He decides what Puppy is and what Puppy isnt because he created it. But we can still go and do whatever we want whenever we want. And just as we have the right to do whatever... so does Barry. Freedom goes both ways.

stifiling wrote:
If Barry's post was made in a new thread...it would've been viewed totally different.
You had to dig deep, past a lot of ArchPup threads, to find this one.
i'm taking it as meaning "F You"...and if that's what being said...Say IT!! So there's no misunderstanding. I wouldn't think that's what's being said.....but it sure does look that way.


Realize this thread started as a whole thing by puppylvr to get arch to work through woof. So in fact Barry's Post in THIS thread is very well placed. Because this thread WAS about building an arch pup with woof. Its possible Barry knew of this thread because when it was first created it subscribed to it to follow development of arch and woof working together.
Placing Barry's woof comments about archpup in simargl thread could be considered very rude, becuase simargl isng using woof. So if Barry posted in the most recent ArchPup thread, simargl would probably think 'why invade my thread with woof stuff when Im not using woof'
POST:
simargl wrote:
Hi, it's not made with woolf2 but use settings from rootfs-skeleton
inside woof.
To make it I used 3 scripts:
- spkg package manager which uses def-scripts to create packages
similiar to arch PKGBUILD or slitaz receipt
-paka is script to convert arch linux packages into spkg.
For all compiled or converted packages this creates folder inside
/var/lib/pacman/local in format $NAME-$VERSION-$REVISION,
so pacman will recognize them as installed.
-finally script called arch is used to extract packages,
create needed busybox links, move some libriaries to /lib,
split development files and create arch-1204.sfs

https://bitbucket.org/simargl


[*]How is Barry posting about 'arch and woof' improperly put in a thread about 'arch and woof'?
[*]Why should Barry start a newthread about 'arch and woof' when there already was a thread in existance about 'arch and woof'?
[*]How would Barry's post about 'arch and woof' be more appropriate in one of simargls threads that is NOT about 'arch and woof'?[/list]

_________________



My PC is for sale
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Chili Dog


Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Posts: 96

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 18:26    Post subject:  

Q5sys wrote:
Arch isnt a source based Distro. Where did you hear that it was?

I'm posting from a pure Arch installation right now, and while most of the main system packages are binaries, most of my user apps come from AUR - compiled from source. So, in the context of user-installed packages (PPM) it is definitely source-based.

Q5sys wrote:
Anyway moving along... As for PPM over Pacman. Yes I consider pacman to be superior to PPM, but I doubt pacman will ever be accepted as mainline puppy... That is an entire separate conversation, so I wont derail the thread by putting it here.

On the first page of this thread, puppyluvr makes it clear that having pacman running on Puppy is one of his highest aims here, so that isn't a separate conversation. It is, in fact, the main issue.

puppyluvr wrote:
What makes it an Archpup? Really.. PACMAN...

Why make a crippled version of something that already exists? Should we not rather improve Arch Pup by making it a real Woof-based Puppy - add to it rather than take away?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Q5sys


Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 1047

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 18:46    Post subject:  

Chili Dog wrote:
Q5sys wrote:
Arch isnt a source based Distro. Where did you hear that it was?

I'm posting from a pure Arch installation right now, and while most of the main system packages are binaries, most of my user apps come from AUR - compiled from source. So, in the context of user-installed packages (PPM) it is definitely source-based.

Ok I'll give you that AUR is source based... but the distro itself isn't, and neither is the official repo.

Chili Dog wrote:
Q5sys wrote:
Anyway moving along... As for PPM over Pacman. Yes I consider pacman to be superior to PPM, but I doubt pacman will ever be accepted as mainline puppy... That is an entire separate conversation, so I wont derail the thread by putting it here.

On the first page of this thread, puppyluvr makes it clear that having pacman running on Puppy is one of his highest aims here, so that isn't a separate conversation. It is, in fact, the main issue.

Good point, I'll address this later once the discussion on the most recent bit dies down.

Chili Dog wrote:
puppyluvr wrote:
What makes it an Archpup? Really.. PACMAN...

Why make a crippled version of something that already exists? Should we not rather improve Arch Pup by making it a real Woof-based Puppy - add to it rather than take away?

I think as a mechanism pacman is incredible, and I'd love to see it adopted. But I dont think we should just work off Arch packages.

_________________



My PC is for sale
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
stifiling

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 388

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 19:17    Post subject:  

Q5sys wrote:
[*]How is Barry posting about 'arch and woof' improperly put in a thread about 'arch and woof'?
[*]Why should Barry start a newthread about 'arch and woof' when there already was a thread in existance about 'arch and woof'?
[*]How would Barry's post about 'arch and woof' be more appropriate in one of simargls threads that is NOT about 'arch and woof'?[/list]


this thread hasn't been posted in, in about 4 months. the ArchPup threads are new. and your kind of splitting hairs about things that are rather ridiculous....for example:
1. Barry leaving a comment in an Archpup thread might be considered rude.
Barry could come in any thread, and talk about Taco Bell if he wanted to and would be more than welcomed. It would be an honor. To say the King, Barry K, might be viewed as rude for leaving a comment about Arch and Woof, in an Archpup thread....is splitting hairs and trying to find ways to defend the fact that he went out of his way.....to ignore ArchPup.

2. Why would he post in an ArchPup thread about *arch and woof* when ArchPup's not Arch and Woof, and this thread is?
Because this thread is old, and no it's not Arch and woof....but it is Arch and Puppy. But this is also another hair split, to defend the fact that ArchPup was blatantly ignored.

Barry says that he ignored ArchPup, and listed his reasons as to why. I thought they were valid reasonings, until I remembered FatDog64.

Q5sys wrote:
Im rooting for you Puppyluvr!
Keep trying. If you make it work you'll go down in history. Smile


This is the type of excitement I was expecting to see when simargl first posted ArchPup. It didn't 'quite' happen that way. Will simargl not go down in history, because he didn't make a bunch of hacks to Woof and build it that way? Talk about a Woof-Fork....that would have literally been forking Woof.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Q5sys


Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 1047

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 19:34    Post subject:  

stifiling wrote:
Barry could come in any thread, and talk about Taco Bell if he wanted to and would be more than welcomed. It would be an honor. To say the King, Barry K, might be viewed as rude for leaving a comment about Arch and Woof, in an Archpup thread....is splitting hairs and trying to find ways to defend the fact that he went out of his way.....to ignore ArchPup.

If you admit that Barry can post in any thread he likes and talk about whatever... then why be upset or disappointed that he choose to post in this thread instead of the one you wanted him to post in?
Personally I think posting about a woof built arch in a non woof built arch thread would have been rude to Simargl, since he's specifically chosen NOT to use woof. Maybe you dont see it that way, but I think there are those like myself that would. I cant claim to what Barry was thinking at the time.

stifiling wrote:
Q5sys wrote:
2. Why would he post in an ArchPup thread about *arch and woof* when ArchPup's not Arch and Woof, and this thread is?

Because this thread is old, and no it's not Arch and woof....but it is Arch and Puppy. But this is also another hair split, to defend the fact that ArchPup was blatantly ignored.
Barry says that he ignored ArchPup, and listed his reasons as to why. I thought they were valid reasonings, until I remembered FatDog64.

So just because a thread is old it cant be brought forward when discussing the topic of the thread? Are there more recent 'arch built from woof' threads?
Also choosing to ignore something because it doesn't fit in with your desires doesnt make that action hostile. I ignore all the ubuntu based puppies released on this forum. Doesn't mean I have anything against the developers or the product. They are simply a distro I dont care about. So I'm not even going to bother to read the threads because I'm not interested. If someone takes a ubuntu based puppy and works on it for months and months and gets pacman to work in it... I wont know because I avoid reading those threads. So if there was another thread about porting pacman to puppy... I would post there instead of the ubuntu thread because of the simple fact that I wouldnt be reading the ubuntu threads because they dont interest me.


Regarding the fatdog comment though...
Fatdog is built from woof (albeit modified due to being 64bit)
Fatdog uses the PPM
Fatdog uses JWM/ROX.
So it fits all three requirements Barry listed.

Archpup is not built from woof.
Archpup does not use the PPM.
Archpup does not use JWM/ROX.
So it does not fit all three requirements Barry listed.

So how are Barry's reasonings invalidated by fatdog64?

_________________



My PC is for sale
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
stifiling

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 388

PostPosted: Thu 14 Mar 2013, 19:49    Post subject:  

Q5sys,

You've got good attorney skills as the points your making are difficult to rebuttal. You know, like how O'Jay really killed Nicole and Ron, but Johnny got him off? You're Johnny right now.

I still feel as though, for some strange reason, ArchPup was avoided like the plague by most the big name senior members, and don't think that just because it wasn't built using woof, was the reason why. I also feel as though quite a few of them were bird's eyeing it like a vulture does a carcass...but for some strange reason, never posting. I can't say for sure because I don't have any super powers to know that for certain but....based on the 'signs' it looks that way.

Anyway, I've been looking for the 64 bit Woof. It's appearing to be buried about just as deep as this thread was. Do you know the link where to download it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 3 of 6 [79 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
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: 0.1568s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0327s) ][ GZIP on ]