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 Sun 23 Nov 2014, 09:43
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
A vote for a modular use of Puppy Linux
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 10 of 11 [165 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10, 11 Next
Author Message
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8644

PostPosted: Sat 07 Dec 2013, 04:54    Post subject:  

Well on puppy 4 as it happens so will post you converted files later on as I cannot download both on here (I accidentally deleted them last night Very Happy ). Yes sorry I remember you mentioning .... sfs can be a little strange at times.. I suspect magic mime problem...occasionally I make a module and it will not show the right click activate menu item...ie the file manager is not detecting it...that happens in rox and thunar.

I think older hardware is a common reason for trying puppy...otherwise why not use something big and shiny if you have a shiny new machine...its less trouble.

Drivers can be built on a range of kernels ...there is no need for the latest to support the latest hardware...ask suse. Webs servers are usually found running older kernels on a stability basis...in my cpanel its up to 2.6.33...a recent change. Proven tried and tested are important features.. Progress needs to be an improvement of some sort.....if I grew an extra appendix would that be evolution Very Happy
I would feel the need for newer software support if I saw that software as doing something better too..at the moment is feels like something forced...update or be excluded for no good reason is a common annoyance on the internet....but we digress.

There seems to be some sfs bashing going on... not sure why .. but the problems relate to how puppy handles them rather than in themselves.
You can change the on the fly loader to improve matters but it still leaves the ones loaded at boot time. Do you or could you have a better way of boot time loading that totally avoids using the puppy init method....you might say...'done this' in which case apologies....I spent 2 years away from this forum..... but if not, its the only way I see of dealing with the problem as getting such changes included in puppy is not an easy route. I have made the modifications but that is of no use to anyone else. I refer to loading order mainly though puppies init does not load additional sfs to ram unless thats changed.

Now that's evolution Smile

Ok thanks for the reply..I noticed you have been busy on here generally

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sat 07 Dec 2013, 12:36    Post subject:  

Hi.

I have downloaded some more Puppy ISO files and done some testings again.

Here's the current complete list:

DpupSqueeze5.3.6.2 - successful
EliteOS1.1 - still to do testings
GuyDog5.0.1 - still to do testings
KDPup-484beta4-2.6.30.5 - still to do testings - needs downloadable sfs3 versions (I think)
KDPup-Lite - still to do testings - needs downloadable sfs3 versions (I think)
Lucid5.2.8 - successful
LxPup13.01 - successful
MacPup5.2.5 - successful
MacPup5.5.0 - successful - but it has crashed when trying to unload the SFS Module - Shocked
Obedient1 - successful
OVPrecise5.8 - successful
Precise5.7.1 - successful
Puppy431v2_KDE - still to do testings - needs downloadable sfs3 versions (I think)
Raring-3.9.9.2-SCSI - still to do testings
Slacko5.3 - successful
Slacko-5.6.3 - successful
Studio13.37 - successful
ThinSlacko5.5.01SCSI - successful
ThreeHeadedDog5.2.8 - successful
Wary5.2 - successful
Wheezy3.5.2.8 - successful - but it has crashed when trying to unload the SFS Module - Shocked

I think, this should be enough Puppies downloaded for testings (takes too much time for me to download all these files).

My first thoughts about the crashing MacPup5.5.0 and the Wheezy3.5.2.8 was about they might be so-called ADRV-Puppies but, no: OVPrecise5.8 and Slacko5.6.3 are such Puppies and it did work without any problems in these puppies. There must be something else in these two puppies, which seems not to be the case in all of the other puppies. I'm in doubt I could find this out.

However: don't get confused, if the your PM with attached sfs3 file versions will stay some few days in your output folder. I need to make a break from development and online activity. So, just keep the PM in your output folder until I have opened it.

Thanks

RSH

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8644

PostPosted: Sat 07 Dec 2013, 14:10    Post subject:  

Quote:
but it has crashed when trying to unload the SFS Module


First idea was unionfs being used but I don't think they would load in the first place..... unhappy aufs/kernel combination maybe.

Have you tried my script to unload in the problem versions... interested to see if there is any difference. (unlikely...the unload command is pretty standard and nothing else should be happening. On puppy 2.12 I can load sfs but they simply refuse to unload..no crash...thats a 2.6.18 kernel....

Ok on the sfs... I am still on windows now.... and I have to make pizza bases.... but I will get there Smile

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8644

PostPosted: Sun 08 Dec 2013, 10:00    Post subject:  

OK finally got there.... was again having too much fun on windows Very Happy ... 3D modelling is sooo adictive.

I unpacked in Lucid but rebuilt in puppy 4 rather than use the sfs converted.
I have attached here... simple and tiny.

@general comments....... but topic related.
There does appear to be some confusion between sfs file usage and the implementation of sfs usage in puppy... 2 entirely different things.

It was only when I changed to using Slax that I learnt of how well all this can work IF, and thats a big IF, it is done properly. Obviously there would be no need for SFS plus if puppy package and sfs handling was done in an efficient and reliable manner. I rewrote the init and sfsloader for the same reasons.

The layering is backwards since when the inits were first written unionfs was used and it was limited to a few layers. That only left room for one or 2 sfs as an afterthought feature so layering was not an issue for its intended use. Having the pup_xxx.sfs as a special file makes the coding a little awkward so the structure ended up as it is and this continued in spite of a rewrite later on.

Overuse of compression... definately an unescessary slowdown.... without it sfs still gives a very good size reduction while remaining fast in use and building....but we are apparently going to use xz for pets and puppy leaves out tiny but very useful core binaries so the size obsession is not just in this area.

Bad sfs breaking a system...I do believe that would apply to ANY packaging method...at least a bad sfs build is removed simply and cleanly.

I have used multi module systems for years... if there were major or even minor problems with It I would not do so... I want my machines to work every day all day and they do and to me this gives the best way of using LInux....I have tried many other combinations. I even ended up using an sfs for saving for the same reasons plus it helped solve puppys unclean shutdown problem in a simple manner and releases flash sticks.
Doing things using the best methods available is natural human behaviour....no obessions going on.
I use windows all the time too...I made it work well as I want and need to use it regularly. No sfs used though I have archived one programs install as an sfs as its soo easy to grab a file using 7zip.... ahh its spreading.

Ok just wanted to address a couple of matter that have arisen on this forum recently.

Will await your return

mike
LP2-test_sfs3.tar.gz
Description 
gz

 Download 
Filename  LP2-test_sfs3.tar.gz 
Filesize  13.27 KB 
Downloaded  149 Time(s) 
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5042
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun 08 Dec 2013, 13:36    Post subject:  

Mike; A thought... An AppDir is sequestered in it`s own dir. and uses it`s own /bin & /lib paths.

It`s certainly possible that it could interfere with everything else, but it`s hard to imagine how...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8644

PostPosted: Sun 08 Dec 2013, 15:01    Post subject:  

I believe targetting sfs usage as a method that inherently can easily break the system in a way that nothing else does was painting an inaccurate picture of the situation. A pet, deb, tgz rpm and even building from source can equally do exactly the same damage. Appdir may indeed avoid the possibility which would be a plus point but this childish smear campaign is getting a little tedious and not really contributing to anything constructive,

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
amigo

Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 2276

PostPosted: Sun 08 Dec 2013, 15:47    Post subject:  

If an sfs is mounted in one of the main aufs layers, then it certainly has the ability to bork the system -at least temporarily. But one can also mount and union them in such a way to avoid that and isolate any problems. A file system image doesn't have to be unioned at all in order to be useful -but whether that will work for a given program depends on how flexible the program itself is.

And in the end, there is no hard criteria to distingush between an archive (pet, AppDir, etc) and a file sysetm image like sfs or s2fs files are. Any of them can be either mounted or extracted transparently to the user/system. The devil's in the details of which parts of the filesystem the program accesses. If it doesn't use anything under /etc or /usr/share, then it's very easy to make them work using wrappers which set the PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH -this is exactly what most AppDirs also do -or the programs are simply compiled to run from a non-standard location wherever you want them to be.
But if the programs need /etc or /usr/share -and many do, then the only way to work the program into the system is by using those normal paths -placing the software there, or use a union-mount unionfs which makes your wanted files appear to be in those paths. If the software must be available to any client at every level of the system, then your unioning needs to go in at the system level -and you would be well advised to not pursue this -that's where real, installed packages should be used.

OTOH, a unioned chroot provides a unique somewhat-secure environment for just the application you want. Any number of such mounts can be used at a time and can be mounted/unmounted on the fly without affecting the system at all. If you had to pick only one way to make software dynamically available on the system -modularly, that is, then the union-mount+chroot is the only way to be able to cover all bases. Puppy normally uses an underlying aufs with multiple layers which already stretch the sanity of such a system, I would not recommend trying to intervene in that system at all. And if you are talking about system-level software, then it is best made usable in the paradigm of an 'installed package'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8644

PostPosted: Sun 08 Dec 2013, 17:20    Post subject:  

In the traditional approach any additional software would be attached, mounted, installed, copied to /usr/local.... that was the purpose I believe.

I did once upon a time have an apps folder on a hard drive with a selection of self contained programs with various twiddles to get them to run. All that left in there now is a pile of wine software....too much messing about especially when the system changes.

The attraction is indeed convenience.... inserting into the core file structure will work for any application, and indeed that does raise the possibility of messing things up....I installed pet x and now application y no longer runs.... how many posts a week for that one?

I definately appreciate that 3rd party software keeping out of the core system is a good move... dsl took this approach IIRC though it did make the head spin with the knoppix file structure.
I suppose it a bit like the running as root argument.... its fine if common sense is used. Layering in a package that's built properly to an organised structure will not cause a problem. Having a distro with packages from every tom, dick and harry is perhaps more to the crux of the problem than how those items are installed.

No install method can be blamed for reckless package policies in the same way airbags are not really a cure for dangerous driving.

Chrooting ... not something I have dabbled in much apart from building busybox with ulibc... does it give a transparent system from a users point of view? In the busybox toolchain for example I was in a non puppy system for the duration.

One other thing... this ere puppy is supposed to be a live portable distro for use in odd places.... this does affect its design criteria... small, simple, stripped down, modular (it is really ) , rules get bent or conveniently forgotten.
Its not what I use by default only for experimenting on... those main distro features are a better bet for an installed system.
Trusting all your precious data to a pile of hacky scripts is not really a good policy but for a quick furkle its fine

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5042
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun 08 Dec 2013, 17:41    Post subject:  

The post was in thought to your post, no smear has ever been intended. Hope none is taken...

The union FS is hackish, and it will never be in the main stream kernel code.
But works fairly well all in all.... But if it`s not needed, why have it.?

amigo; My main worry about chroot unions is the cpu ( & maybe ram ) load of many of them.
Mike and I agreed running aufs seems to produce a load, but adding layers doesn`t so much.
This is just our observation, so it would have to be tested to really mean much at all...


Mike; A chroot-union is in a dir., same as a AppDir / RoxApp is. The shell instance jumps into the dir. and sets it as /.
You can look into the dir. and see a little copy of / running with the app in it. It works very well as amigo says.

I`d rather have relocatable apps, compiled that way, or some links is okay. Chrome needs only 1 link to work.
A few chroot-union apps that are troublesome and can`t be made to stand-alone easily is okay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue 14 Jan 2014, 14:54    Post subject:  

Ok.

The SFS P.L.U.S. stored in the Modularity Package was 3.9.3.
The RoxApp Builder stored in the Modularity Package was 0.9.0

Current Versions are 3.9.9-42 (SFS P.L.U.S.) and 0.9.9-8 (RAB).

So, as the Version Numbers may show: I've done a lot of improvements, bug-fixes and additions to the SFS Package.

I feared the Moment when entering a 'finshed' state, because of writing a documentation for all of this.

Even to present just a short and quick guide to each one of the 25+ Applications of the SFS P.L.U.S., would result in 25 (or even much more) Pages to have a completed quick guide documentation.

I really don't like to write documentations, I like to write applications!

So, I've made a step aside and took a look at what I've had done so far.

- all those Applications for the use on and work with SFS Modules
- RoxApp Builder to create automatically different types of RoxApps
- Application Kiosk, another GtkDialog-GUI based Application-Starter
- - which is inspired by and does look like SFR's IconFinder - just for the installed Applications

I thought to myself: there must be a way to use all of this -and what I've learned while developing these Applicatons- in a much smarter way; probably resulting in just a single Application.

Since everything is already in a Puppy Linux that would be needed for a really smart and useful Version of this all, and that would exclude everything what's LazY Puppy related or would need to have some LazY Puppy Specials installed, I felt in Love with the idea to write all this again - from scratch, but using some LazY Puppy SFS P.L.U.S. Code snippets.

So, I pointed my focus to realize a Version that would need only, what's already installed in a Puppy Linux:

- sfs_load (>=1.9)
- gtkdialog4 (>=0.8.0 - 0.8.4 was used at development and testings)
- Xdialog (should be in all Puppies)
- download_file (Puppy's download script)

That's all.

Before announcing results and features I need to make a remark.

This remark is related to all the discussions on the forum about what has to be changed/removed from a Puppy Linux.

Remove all the Liar-Stuff from Puppy Linux!

That actually means: remove those scripts and applications, that is telling the user, he/she can't download and use SFS Modules and would need to create a personal storage file and need to do a reboot at first.

These times are gone since sfs_load has been published!

At least, they are gone right now!

So, I'm announcing now:

SFS P.L.U.S. IS DEAD! LONG LIVE SARA!

Actually SARA B., the result of my work during the last weeks.

A (S)tand (A)lone (R)ox (A)pp (B)uilder!

SARA B. creates SARA R.S.D, the (S)tand (A)lone (R)ox (A)pp (R.)un (S.)cript (D.)irectory !

SARA B. is self-explanatory (by GUI ToolTips) and also self-configurable (by 'init_' script that removes everything not longer needed after it is configured including itself).

It also can be re-configured manually and easily by a config file.

It has a right-click menu with multiple options to edit the script and config file, add a menu entry or desktop button, unload the SFS Module etc.pp.

Currentlyt comes as: 81 K (25 files, 6 directories) and
it stays as: 37 K (16 files, 5 directories) in uncompressed sizes.

To recall, SFS P.L.U.S. 3.9.9-42 is currently at: 6246 K (1911 files, 437 directories). Of course it comes with some special tools to create SFS files from PET files and to patch the RunScrips etc.pp.

But SARA B. is much smarter related to the main parts of SFS P.L.U.S.: the RunScript-Builder and SFS to SFS P.L.U.S. Converter. SARA B. includes the SFS dependencies (its names) into the RunScript - SFS P.L.U.S. doesn't. So, the Converter is not longer needed and to add or to remove dependencies is way faster done manually in a text editor as it can be done by editing a SFS Module.

There are three ways to create a SARA R.S.D. for an existing SFS Module:

1. manually by editing the config file and renaming the SARA B. Directory (a copy of it)
2. automatically by drag'n'drop of a SFS Module onto the SARA B. Directory
3. automatically by drag'n'drop multiple SFS Modules onto the SARA B. Directory

Way No. 3 is a very special advantage because one can choose the main SFS Module in the SARA B. GUI and all other Modules listed are defined automatically as dependent SFS Module to the main SFS Module.

This means: it could be a real dependent SFS Module like Java or Python etc.pp. And it could be also just a collection of SFS Modules to be loaded when the main SFS Module is used.

Example on Graphics work:

- Main Application would be the GIMP
- Sub Application would be a Image Viewer like XnView

(or even reverted!)

Ok, that's it so far. Later more.

I need to do now translations from DE to EN plus some reboots to do some testings again. But since this whole thing is already tested in multiple
different puppies and already in use for a long time, I might be too LazY to do to many reboots.

Ah, and not to forget: it WORKS now in Wheezy!

Currently using it and posting from it. In use is a SARA R.S.D of LP2_Firefox7.sfs and also Go-OO-3.2.1-Lucid.sfs (not edited, just as it has downloaded). Could not test the GIMP, because of a installed lib-gimp version that conflicts to all my GIMP SFS Modules.

LP2_Gimp273.sfs
LP2_Gimp2611.sfs
LP2_Gimp2612.sfs
LP2_Gimp-2.7.1-1-w5.sfs
LP2_Gimp-2.7.1-i386.sfs
LP2_GIMP-2.8.4-Full.sfs
LP2_Gimp-2.8.10-precise.sfs
LP2_GimpFull2610.sfs
LP2_GimpPainter-2.8.7.sfs

RSH
image-1.jpg
 Description   SARA B. running and in use in Wheezy 3.5.2.1
 Filesize   141.48 KB
 Viewed   339 Time(s)

image-1.jpg


_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8644

PostPosted: Tue 14 Jan 2014, 15:35    Post subject:  

Quote:
I feared the Moment when entering a 'finshed' state, because of writing a documentation for all of this.

as a developement technician thats the bit that loomed in the background.
Bit like having a school trip and then having to write an essay about it Very Happy

Actually looking at your posts i doubt if technical documentation is a big problem for you Smile

I was going to send out a search party for yourself and karl godt but in your case I really just need to learn to speak more than 10 words of german...

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue 14 Jan 2014, 15:55    Post subject:  

mikeb wrote:
I was going to send out a search party...

What is a search party?

mikeb wrote:
...for yourself and karl godt but in your case I really just need to learn to speak more than 10 words of german...

Why this?

Is my English that kinda ugly?

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8644

PostPosted: Tue 14 Jan 2014, 16:04    Post subject:  

well karl disappeared and not seen yourself either for some time but then realised you post on the german section...hence my need for more german vocabulary.

A search party is a group of people sent to look for a missing person.

Exclamation Question Idea Arrow

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
RSH


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 2420
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue 14 Jan 2014, 16:08    Post subject:  

Quote:
not seen yourself either for some time

Yeah, as you might know, the Girls, the Girls, the Girls...

Just felt in Love with SARA B.!

Laughing

_________________
LazY Puppy
RSH's DNA
SARA B.

Last edited by RSH on Tue 14 Jan 2014, 16:27; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8644

PostPosted: Tue 14 Jan 2014, 16:22    Post subject:  

Die Mädchen ... our achilles heel.

They are safe... its unlikely I will get to sneak over there for a while

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 10 of 11 [165 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10, 11 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: 0.1235s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0068s) ][ GZIP on ]