Page 12 of 24
Posted: Mon 07 Jan 2013, 15:14
by darkcity
To create the /interface file, wlan0 must have been created prior to the Frisbee startup code (in init.d??) being run - that's why the wifi driver needs to be loaded earlier in the boot sequence - .start is too late - which can be achieved by editing the addlist in /etc/rc.d/MODULESCONFIG
I think there must be lots of module loading stuff missing from archpup that has been worked on for many years in trad puppies - rerwin is the current guru who knows most about this side of things.
Thanks peebee, very useful information.
I know Archpup isn't built from the Woof package - I wonder if the what the dis/advantages are.
Posted: Mon 07 Jan 2013, 16:03
by peebee
PacmanXG is giving errors when I try to run it - am I missing something?
Thanks
peebee
Posted: Mon 07 Jan 2013, 16:27
by simargl
ciento: I think you try to boot with old savefile, and /root/.xinit in savefile tries to read information from /etc/windowmanager, but in new version that file is removed, and window manager is specified with env.variable in /etc/profile.
peebee: PacmanXG is missing pkgfile that shows details about packages, it's no big deal...
yaf-splash is added, actually it was called gtkdialog-splash I renamed it.
darkcity wrote:
I like the way trad Puppy has default-app links, maybe these could be added to archpup,
for example, instead of tint2c having
launcher_item_app = /usr/applications/share/firefox.desktop
launcher_item_app = /usr/applications/share/chrome.desktop
etc..
just use-
launcher_item_app = /root/.defaultapps/default-browser
In new version tint2rc has this
Code: Select all
launcher_item_app = /usr/share/applications/web-browser.desktop
and calls /usr/bin/web-browser that will automatically find installed browser.
Posted: Mon 07 Jan 2013, 16:59
by mavrothal
Posted: Mon 07 Jan 2013, 17:30
by darkcity
@mavrothal
I did , remove Pwireless it from init.d, install b43 firmware, install Frisbee_archpup-2. But it wasn't a totally fresh install, so I will test that next time, thanks.
@simargl
Great stuff this allows more flexibility ; -) One thing I notice is that when Thunar shows a .desktop file it displays its 'name' property, not true filename (further compicated by not showing true filename even under properties - goes into 'Launcher' mode). Opening with geany shows the true filename in its titlebar. Can this feature in Thunar be disabled?
Posted: Mon 07 Jan 2013, 18:55
by Scooby
simargl wrote:ArchPup can load 20 sfs modules, but if you later unload SFS file that contained dependencies for target package, you will have to find those missing packages and install them manually.
I wondered if you could uninstall with pacman something in sfs and the sfs is not loaded?
Does pacman uninstall all dependencies?
ldd I dont know it.
From searching the web it says
Code: Select all
ldd prints the shared libraries required by each program or shared library specified on the command line.
How would you go about it? Seems to me I dont know with what program
the dependencies was installed in the first place.
You manually have to go through all of them?
Posted: Mon 07 Jan 2013, 20:25
by simargl
darkcity wrote:One thing I notice is that when Thunar shows a .desktop file it displays its 'name' property, not true filename (further compicated by not showing true filename even under properties - goes into 'Launcher' mode). Opening with geany shows the true filename in its titlebar. Can this feature in Thunar be disabled?
Not sure, but I think it's not posible to stop showing application name in Thunar, for me solution is to open terminal in that directory and type ls.
Scooby wrote:
I wondered if you could uninstall with pacman something in sfs and the sfs is not loaded?
Does pacman uninstall all dependencies?
If you uninstall package that is inside sfs module it will be removed from pacman's database, but files from that package will not be deleted. If you want to remove them just unload sfs file. Pacman will uninstall all dependencies installed with a package, only when you remove that package with command pacman -Rs (not just pacman -R).
Posted: Mon 07 Jan 2013, 22:46
by stifiling
Scooby wrote:I wondered if you could uninstall with pacman something in sfs
you mean something like urxvt, tint2, or openbox? those are permanently stuck in there, unless you know how to remaster them out.
if xterm is your favorite terminal, you'd prolly want to get rid of urxvt but you can't. you're stuck with it having them both.
which is why the main.sfs shouldn't have them. then it would have the room for linux firmware, would meet the 80MB limit, and would give the user full control.
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 03:53
by ciento
simargl wrote:ciento: I think you try to boot with old savefile, and /root/.xinit in savefile tries to read information from /etc/windowmanager, but in new version that file is removed, and window manager is specified with env.variable in /etc/profile.
It can't find Arch12.12.sfs, which is there, on the disk, and in the root partitions. It hits the prompt quickly, while looking for puppy files.
What is the name and size of default savefile?
I did not create a savefile,
since I could not get online. I probably powered off, rather
than using the shutdown icon and process.
The line from /etc/profile, naming the windowmanger, might help,
If things can be created manually.
Cheers
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 04:29
by mavrothal
@ Scooby:
You
can uninstall something in the sfs with packman. Uninstall in a sense that will be neither visible nor usable.
However, the files will always be there since the sfs is a "read only" file system. "Uninstalling" just hides the files from the user and the OS.
On another note:
Please let's not get carried away by, "look at the size of it"
.
There are already distros that start from 6MB for "console only" to ~30MB for an OS with GUI.
The question is what can you do with these OOTB? Not much.
As I understand it there are 3 ways (and a cheat) to reduce size.
1) cut basic functionality,
2) recompile packages more efficiently cutting some functionality (language support, very rare use cases, thoughtless addition of dependencies, alternative major lib dependencies)
3) Code/develop new packages that do a similar job and are smaller (gtkdialog/bash apps for example).
cheat) Compress the sfs more
Puppy's strength and appeal is that is focusing mainly on 2 and 3 and less on 1, to deliver a fully functional small OS (albeit not very "modern looking"…
).
However, with the arrival of woof and the use of packages from main distros, 2 has been minimized and size has gone up.
It will be difficult to have an 80MB OS without resorting to 2 and 3. I'm afraid that 1 is the more likely way.
The challenge will be in these 80 MB to strike the perfect mix of "adequate functionality" and this "adequate functionality" to be widely accepted as adequate. Not just by experts and tinkerers.
Let's see how 12.12.2 will turn out.
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 05:19
by stifiling
mavrothal wrote:The challenge will be in these 80 MB to strike the perfect mix of "adequate functionality" and this "adequate functionality" to be widely accepted as adequate. Not just by experts and tinkerers.
this can be achieved by creating multiple iso's.
Archpup Bare iso (w/only main.sfs for experts, tinkerers, geeks)
Archpup Light Apps iso (w/main.sfs and light DE.sfs for intermediates)
Archpup Medium Apps iso (w/main.sfs and medium DE.sfs for intermediates and beginners)
Archpup Big Apps iso (w/main.sfs and big DE.sfs for beginners)
Just like Linux mint, linux mint Debian, linux mint KDE, or Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu. But better. Because there's one for experts also, without having to strip it out.
It also let's the Distro grow with the user. as they advance, they can just delete the DE.sfs they're using, and use a smaller one. Or just use the main.sfs, dd theirselves a save file, and pacman -S any DE they want.
without having this thing in the back of their head saying "i know that app is still there, just hiding." if i deleted it. I wouldn't want it just hiding. I'd totally want it completely 'gone'.
i think this layout is very competitive, easy to use, and unmatched.
what's a flaw with it??
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 05:31
by mavrothal
stifiling wrote:what's a flaw with it??
There is no "flaw" (assuming all these ISOs will be provided)
But looking at the sourceforge download data there are at least 3 times as many ISO downloads than archapps.sfs downloads.
As you said there are thousands of distros and variants out there.
Your flagship ISO (In this case the "plain" Archpup) is usually your "make or break", the rest just add to the appeal of the distro (but that's only if your first attempt is satisfying).
Of course there are exceptions to every rule, so we'll see how this will go.
(editing while you were posting below
)
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 05:35
by stifiling
mavrothal wrote:(assuming all these ISOs will be provided)
and i think all these isos should be provided.
do you think this is a 'target' goal that would work? for the masses?
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 05:57
by mavrothal
stifiling wrote:
do you think this is a 'target' goal that would work? for the masses?
Quite frankly I think that Saluki showed the way.
You make your main ISO with 2 (3) SFSs and provide a good initial experience OOTB, with size anything from 120 to 200MB.
Then you can have your Archpup-base ISO with 60-80MB and your Archpup-monster with the Out house sink.
Does not really change the line of work, but the release of a crippled "Archpup.iso" will do more harm than good, even if it is 50MB.
So the goal for the base is to have all the required infra for a solid Archpup. Not its size.
But all these are theoretical. Let's see how it plays out.
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 06:07
by stifiling
mavrothal wrote:Quite frankly I think that Saluki showed the way.
You make your main ISO with 2 (3) SFSs and provide a good initial experience OOTB, with size anything from 120 to 200MB.
Then you can have your Archpup-base ISO with 60-80MB and your Archpup-monster with the Out house sink.
Does not really change the line of work, but the release of a crippled "Archpup.iso" will do more harm than good, even if it is 50MB.
So the goal for the base is to have all the required infra for a solid Archpup. Not its size.
But all these are theoretical. Let's see how it plays out.
I'm totally agreeing with you, just like how Saluki did it. but with all hardware capabilities in the main.sfs and all the gui in the second.sfs. i think the main.sfs should boot to tty. but you can still 'geek out' with it. dd a save file, reboot so it loads it, iwconfig wlan0, to the internet....and pacman -S whatever you want.
Saluki's main.sfs has xfce in it. i might want to use LXDE without having xfce hiding in there somewhere.
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 06:33
by stifiling
i'd like to start working on some of those isos. an XFCE one. i'd also like simargl to link to it and advertise it in the first post, so what do u think OP?
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 06:55
by James C
Finally did a fresh frugal install of 12.12.1 ........ display,internet and sound all working and correct on initial boot.Using the Archapps sfs as well....... no problems there.
Failed making a savefile on first attempt so I just manually added it.
Everything working and no drama so short report.
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 07:51
by simargl
ciento wrote:It can't find Arch12.12.sfs, which is there, on the disk, and in the root partitions. It hits the prompt quickly, while looking for puppy files.
What is the name and size of default savefile?
Hi, new main sfs name is archpup-12.12.sfs, old one was archpup-1212.sfs, so if you don't replace old initrd.gz, it will fail while searching for old file name.
James C wrote:Finally did a fresh frugal install of 12.12.1 ........ display,internet and sound all working and correct on initial boot.Using the Archapps sfs as well....... no problems there.
Failed making a savefile on first attempt so I just manually added it.
Everything working and no drama so short report.
Thanks for your comment, I'm glad that everything works
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 08:07
by simargl
stifiling: I like your idea of having different isos for all kind of users from beginners to experts, but for now better stick to only two:
- Archpup Light Apps iso (w/main.sfs and light DE.sfs for intermediates)
- Archpup Medium Apps iso (w/main.sfs and medium DE.sfs for intermediates and beginners)
I will make first one, and you if you want or any other interested user, could make that bigger iso, with xfce, lxde or whatever you like, perhaps you could use archapps as source. Archapps sfs size is 67 mb, goal for that file was not to reduce size, but to add all applications I use regularly - otherwise qt4, package with 28mb would not be there.
Posted: Tue 08 Jan 2013, 08:09
by simargl
I made new iso with linux-firware, relaced urxvt with lxterminal, recompiled thunar with static xfce libs, removed some themes, moved /usr/lib/python2.7 to arch-dev
- now size is 82.8 MB. Will try so find something more, also I want to change user interface, move tint2 to bottom change conky look, themes...