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 Sat 20 Oct 2018, 12:01
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Utilities
PaDS 1.1.4 - updated version of 1.0.4
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 4 [59 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
musher0

Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 12827
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

PostPosted: Tue 17 Jul 2018, 22:20    Post subject:  

ITSMERSH wrote:
rockedge wrote:
if this tool could only as an addition to it's capabilities...be able to combine corepup (tinycore) .tcz packages and or sfs files to tcz ... just a thought..I use it as it is..Good work.

Hi rockedge.

Is .sfs usable in tiny core?

I could include a option to build .sfs from .tcz also into a next version. And then -in addition like the .pet option- a option to create a .tcz package along with the .sfs. Though, I don't want to turn it into a package creator in general.

However: I don't have any idea how to pack/unpack .tcz files.

Any code example of how to do this?

@backi

Thanks!

Hi RSH.

It's no big mystery. Just change the extension from tcz to sfs. Because tcz archives
are squashed archives, you can open them with the unsquashfs utility. Q.v.
http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=7130.0

IHTH.

_________________
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
Fidèle elle commença, ainsi elle restera. (Prov. canadien) /
Faithful she began, so will she stay. (Canadian prov.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ITSMERSH


Joined: 02 May 2018
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 00:04    Post subject:  

Quote:
the "control" file from ubuntu deb archives, found in plain sight in /

At least the Slacko install directory and its doinstall script is executed and it is removed afterwards, so it doesn't appear in the .sfs.

Also the pet.specs from Puppies .pet files. Can't recall the control file and am not sure about the pinstall script, though.

Quote:
It's no big mystery. Just change the extension from tcz to sfs. Because tcz archives are squashed archives, you can open them with the unsquashfs utility.

Ok, I see. Cool Thanks.

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


Joined: 02 May 2018
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 07:17    Post subject:  

@musher0

Re the control file.

Would you please post a link to a .deb file that includes that control file, so I can examine this?

Few minutes ago I unpacked some .deb files, but none of them included such control file (assuming it is named: control).

Thanks

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


Joined: 02 May 2018
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 08:46    Post subject:  

Ok, I can recall the control file by now.

I had once created a program: make-deb-package.

For this I had created code to make the control file, which is in: /DEBIAN/control. So, next version of PaDS will remove that /DEBIAN/control directory and file.

_________________
RSH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
musher0

Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 12827
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 09:17    Post subject:  

ITSMERSH wrote:
@musher0

Re the control file.

Would you please post a link to a .deb file that includes that control file, so I can examine this?

Few minutes ago I unpacked some .deb files, but none of them included such control file (assuming it is named: control).

Thanks

Hi, RSH.

Gladly:
https://ubuntu.pkgs.org/16.04/ubuntu-main-i386/libgtop2-dev_2.32.0-1_i386.deb.html
On that page, please go down to the "Download" section. That is where the
ubuntu deb archive is. I was trying to compile the "alltray" utility yesterday
morning, and the libgtop library is required: all the parts of it! Wink

I can't remember if the Debian deb archives have similar "guide" files,
but ubuntu's sure are a pain in the neck when creating a pet of sfs.

IHTH.

_________________
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
Fidèle elle commença, ainsi elle restera. (Prov. canadien) /
Faithful she began, so will she stay. (Canadian prov.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ITSMERSH


Joined: 02 May 2018
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 10:03    Post subject:  

That libgtop2-dev_2.32.0-1_i386.deb doesn't include a control file. Its content is a /usr directory with some content in it.

No control file at all.

_________________
RSH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
fredx181


Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Posts: 3481
Location: holland

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 11:16    Post subject:  

ITSMERSH wrote:
That libgtop2-dev_2.32.0-1_i386.deb doesn't include a control file. Its content is a /usr directory with some content in it.

No control file at all.


It does have a DEBIAN/control file, something would be very wrong if not, every Debian or Ubuntu package must have it.
I extract (on Debian) with "dpkg-deb" (I think puppies have it also) by doing e.g.
Code:
mkdir libgtop2-dev_2.32.0-1_i386
dpkg-deb -R libgtop2-dev_2.32.0-1_i386.deb libgtop2-dev_2.32.0-1_i386


EDIT: Also "ar" can be used:
https://linux-tips.com/t/how-to-extract-deb-package/169
EDIT2:
Quote:
I had once created a program: make-deb-package.

Yes, of course that was you who made that Smile
For a long time already it's included in every 'Dog' release, thanks !!

Fred

_________________
Dog Linux website
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ITSMERSH


Joined: 02 May 2018
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 13:37    Post subject:  

Ok,

I was extracting this .deb by using a right-click action of my LazY Puppy (Tahr 6.0.2 based), which returns the /usr directory only. This right-click action sends the file clicked to /usr/bin/Extract-Debian.

Extract-Debian wrote:
#!/bin/sh
# /usr/local/bin/Extract-Debian
## 2009-8 TazOC
# 2010-04 TazOC partial CL fix


The script uses /usr/bin/undeb "$DEBFILE" to unpack the .deb file.

undeb wrote:
#!/bin/sh
exec dpkg-deb -x "$@" .


It seems that script needs some update...

...could it be the difference -x and -R ?

When using the method mentioned by fredx181 ( -R ), it returns the DEBIAN directory along with the /usr directory. Though, this doesn't make any sense to me! Shocked

fredx181 wrote:
Yes, of course that was you who made that Smile
For a long time already it's included in every 'Dog' release, thanks !!

Really? Surprised

I can recall a member (forgot his name) mentioning to use and modify the make-deb-package for the use in a OS he's building on. Didn't know it was one of the dogs...

Cool! Cool

Thanks to all. Very Happy

Edit:

Ok, I used dpkg-deb --help in the terminal and it returns -R is to extract control info and files, while -x seems to hide/remove those dir/file.

@musher0: So, this means I don't need to change anything on PaDS for that control file (it's just not existing inside the .sfs files created with PaDS), as long as the /usr/bin/undeb script remains using -x at extraction.

This now catches three of the four points you/I mentioned. The only point now is the pinstall script of .pet files.

_________________
RSH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
fredx181


Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Posts: 3481
Location: holland

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 14:10    Post subject:  

ITSMERSH wrote:
fredx181 wrote:
Yes, of course that was you who made that Smile
For a long time already it's included in every 'Dog' release, thanks !!

Really? Surprised

I can recall a member (forgot his name) mentioning to use and modify the make-deb-package for the use in a OS he's building on. Didn't know it was one of the dogs...

Cool! Cool


Possibly it was me you've seen mentioning it in some 'Dog' thread (there are many, so not easy to find)
Anyway, it's included as right-click option "Build deb" for thunar or pcmanfm in many dogs (a bit modified from your original though), latest in BionicDog.

Fred

_________________
Dog Linux website
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ITSMERSH


Joined: 02 May 2018
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 14:35    Post subject:  

Can't say it was you, though I'm pretty sure it was in the topic I created for that make-deb-package.

But I can't find it.

The info about last edited on my version returns 21. May 2014. So, long ago...

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


Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 2695
Location: 500 seconds from Sol

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 15:09    Post subject:  

Hi All,

As I said, musher0's posts are useful, even his critiques. Knowing I have a flaky memory, I have long since given up any attempt to force myself to memorize details. I'll remember them, or I won't; 'though repetition often aids the former. But I am fairly good at visualizing patterns, including those evolving over time, and that whether it entails a computer application or a human organization. Which is why I draw a distinction between negative criticism --which serves only to discourage exploration and/or demeans a proponent of a proposed change-- and a critique which informs of a problem or negative effect of implementing a change.

musher0's critique has already proven useful. As a computer-semi-literate, I can only apply the Boolean test for a process: It works, it doesn't work. It is now clear that falls short of musher0's goal of validation even taking into consideration the post-initial-build examinations I've mentioned undertaking.

I can think of one other systemic flaw in the automatic build process. Puppies are not identical to the distros with which they are binary compatible. Eschewing the inclusion of “bloat”, Puppies employ foundation structures absent from the foundations of the distro to which they are binary compatible. Based on different structures, two binary-compatible operating systems may utilize different superstructures to accomplish the same end goal. An automatic build-process may, therefore, result in an application containing structures which a Puppy would not require if the application had been constructed taking into consideration the structures that Puppy already had present. And, in some cases, the inclusion of such structures and the processes which they provide may not only be unnecessary but interfere with the processes and structures native to that Puppy.

Perhaps the only “remedy” for that systemic flaw is the approach used by Kirk, James Bond and the rest of the FatDog Team: build Puppy from scratch so that you have sufficient knowledge of its foundation and processes that you can hand-craft applications particularly suited for it. But that “remedy” involves its own "design flaw": it sacrifices that efficiency of the utilization of time and resources which were among the primary goals Barry K sought in creating Woof: that Puppies be able to use the applications built for other distros and would not have to acquire On-line space for storing applications and the bandwidth for uploading and downloading them.

The problem I mentioned is similar to that entailed in attempting to transpose an application designed for Ubuntu into one for Puppy: Ubuntu employs a structure which recognizes three folders that “Ubuntu-compatible Puppies” can't even find. Knowing that problem existed, ITMERSH was able to develop a procedure to avoid it.

musher0's critique of using automation is not well placed. It should not matter whether packagers are decompressed and files copied into a build manually or automatically. If what musher0 has referred to as validation is a procedure that should be considered, than that is something which can be done manually either before building (as musher0 argued) or after an initial build (as I've in implied); or perhaps automatically handled or at least 'flagged' as something to be examined post-build as ITSMERSH has suggested.

As I'm not certain exactly what musher0 means by “validation” and am unaware of the significance of a “control file” as used under debian (or other distros) perhaps some elaboration would be worth while.

PaDS, as it now stands, may have other aspects worthy of constructive criticism. In helping him to develop PaDS, I've found ITSMERSH to possess qualities not frequently combined: a willingness to seek advice, not being overly thin-skinned, with the ability to distinguish that which he creates from himself, and somewhat of a perfectionist.

Keeping in mind that ITSMERSH has, like all of us, a “real-life” and interests beyond “Puppy”, I suspect that if he has the time and is encouraged to do so, he would choose to continue to modify PaDS to address any valid concerns.

mikesLr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
musher0

Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 12827
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 18:13    Post subject:  

ITSMERSH wrote:
That libgtop2-dev_2.32.0-1_i386.deb doesn't include a control file. Its content is a /usr directory with some content in it.

No control file at all.
Here you go! (Unpacked with UExtract).
VeryStrange.jpg
 Description   This is what I have.
 Filesize   56.04 KB
 Viewed   89 Time(s)

VeryStrange.jpg


_________________
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
Fidèle elle commença, ainsi elle restera. (Prov. canadien) /
Faithful she began, so will she stay. (Canadian prov.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
musher0

Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 12827
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 18:17    Post subject:  

ITSMERSH wrote:
Ok,
(...)
This now catches three of the four points you/I mentioned. The only point now is the pinstall script of .pet files.

Excellent!

_________________
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
Fidèle elle commença, ainsi elle restera. (Prov. canadien) /
Faithful she began, so will she stay. (Canadian prov.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ITSMERSH


Joined: 02 May 2018
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Wed 18 Jul 2018, 20:16    Post subject:  

Hi.

Thanks @musher0.

So, this is what UExtract is using to extract .deb files:
Code:
*.deb|*.udeb)
   func_precheck dpkg-deb && {
     if [ "$MODE" = "list" ]; then
      dpkg-deb -c "$ARCHPATH" && return 0
     else
      dpkg-deb -e "$ARCHPATH" .
      dpkg-deb -X "$ARCHPATH" . && return 0
     fi


The -e option extracts the control info (obviously no directory). However, if one doesn't use -e or -R the control file and DEBIAN directory doesn't seem to be extracted.

Different options, different results...

...I think, PaDS can live with that for a undefined period...

mikeslr wrote:
If what musher0 has referred to as validation is a procedure that should be considered, than that is something which can be done manually either before building (as musher0 argued) or after an initial build (as I've in implied); or perhaps automatically handled or at least 'flagged' as something to be examined post-build as ITSMERSH has suggested.

Hi Mike.

Remembering me one talking about my version of PaDS (XPaDS 1.4.6)?

I mentioned a GUI to edit the .desktop files within the build directory of the new .sfs. This GUI has some additional options like opening /usr/share/applications and /usr/share/pixmaps inside this directory, copying icons from the system if none was found etc.

At this point of the .sfs to build one can edit anything inside this directory, since XPaDS continues only after this GUI is closed.

I didn't find the time to include this GUI into PaDS 1.1.2 (as I had previously planned), since I need to rewrite and extend some of its code. We will see...

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


Joined: 02 May 2018
Posts: 359

PostPosted: Thu 19 Jul 2018, 00:50    Post subject:  

Updated to PaDS 1.1.3 (see opening post).
_________________
RSH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 4 [59 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Utilities
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: 0.1796s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0265s) ][ GZIP on ]