(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Hello,
I`m still here...
Still trying..
Still pulling my hair out.. LOL

Hello,
See here..
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 022#667022

Woof is being fixed for Arch Linux, see my blog post:

http://bkhome.org/blog2/?viewDetailed=00166

Give me a bit more time, hopefully I can actually get it to boot to the X desktop.

BarryK wrote:Woof is being fixed for Arch Linux, see my blog post:

http://bkhome.org/blog2/?viewDetailed=00166

Give me a bit more time, hopefully I can actually get it to boot to the X desktop.

any specific reason why simargl and ArchPup is being treated like a shadow or an optical illusion?

you kind of have to put forth effort, to skip over the 10 ArchPup threads, and dig up this one. As if the mind set was, "Let me see which other thread I can find, besides these ArchPup ones, to leave this Arch Linux Woof post in."

Seeing Arch Linux working in woof would be a very welcoming addition. I see you guys (a few names I was surprised not to see in the ArchPup thread months ago) kind of struggling over here. Simargl's already got it all figured out. Asking for his help seems ideal...no??

stifiling wrote:any specific reason why simargl and ArchPup is being treated like a shadow or an optical illusion?

Like Barry said in his blog post, Arch packages in Woof was a thing well before simargl came along. (Not to minimize simargl's accomplishment.)

Perhaps simargl could contact Barry and offer assistance; it doesn't have to be the other way around.

Not that it's any of our concern. Barry can do whatever he likes; after all, Barry is Puppy Linux.

Announcer wrote:Like Barry said in his blog post, Arch packages in Woof was a thing well before simargl came along.

He also said it was 'broken' and then 'broke' some more. Yea, I seen that Arch Linux was swallowed by Woof years ago....just never seen it spit back out. Have you? Can you post the link..to the 'working' Arch Linux Puppy Derivative...before 'ArchPup'? Saying Arch Linux existed in Woof....is the same as calling the OP of this thread....an idiot.

Announcer wrote:Perhaps simargl could contact Barry and offer assistance; it doesn't have to be the other way around.

I'm thinking maybe he would have...if his 10 threads weren't, dodged/skipped/deliberately ignored, 'and not by mistake, on purpose'......and this old thread 'dug up' and 'necrobumped' to leave an Arch/Puppy Linux related post in.

Announcer wrote:Not that it's any of our concern. Barry can do whatever he likes; after all, Barry is Puppy Linux.

That's true. Barry is Puppy Linux. But simargl is the first person to make 'Puppy Linux & Arch Linux' work correctly together. So Simargl is Arch Puppy Linux. You've got to put the credit where the credit goes.

I don't see simargl on here bitching. Just you.

Maybe they're talking behind the scenes, who knows?

Announcer wrote:I don't see simargl on here bitching. Just you.

that's beside the point....and also goes both ways.

Announcer wrote:Maybe they're talking behind the scenes, who knows?

Well maybe Barry did acknowledge Archpup...and isn't deliberately ignoring it. Time will reveal...and then 'we'll know'.

.

01micko wrote:Be aware that some of the templates (most) are a bit ubuntu-centric. I have had to hack a few for slacko so that critical stuff doesn't get thrown out. You can avoid using the templates by renaming the "package" in the second field of the PKGS_SPECS_TABLE variable. Some likely culprits can be binutils, coreutils and util-linux.

Hopefully this situation has improved with the latest Woof, see recent blog post:

http://bkhome.org/blog2/?viewDetailed=00178

I now have Arch pup booting to the desktop:

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

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.

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??....

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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" ?

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

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.

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?

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]