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 Mon 20 Oct 2014, 17:50
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » House Training » Bugs ( Submit bugs )
Puppy 4.1.2 (2.6.25.16 kernel) final - bug reports
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 4 of 5 [73 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
niksfish

Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat 21 Feb 2009, 16:15    Post subject:  

Well i'm posting here because somewere it says that's here the place to post suggestions.

I wanted to install puppy normally in the hdd, like some windows or something else. I have tried a lot, but I couldn't make it boot from the bios.

I would like to see something more automatic, because puppy it's suposed to be an SO for easy use. I'm not noob, really I have tried but I couldn't configure Grub or lilo... Maybe it is my bios, but the wizard to install Puppy on the hard disk sucks. I would like to see something to install it directly (i dont know how is called) on that screen black with withe letters (or blue with white letters), with no graphical interface, like installing windows... Or a better wizard that make more things for you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
zvonik

Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed 25 Feb 2009, 17:14    Post subject: bootmanager sfs /mnt/home broken in 412
Subject description: bootmanager starts in wrong dir and BOOTCONFIG is ignored
 

First time puppy user on a Dell C600 laptop. Beats xubuntu hands down on this p3 700Mhz and 256M ram laptop.

I tried to install an sfs as instructed and use bootmanager to select it and it didn't work. Multiple posts suggest that this is broken in 412 (I can provide links if needed). Downloading devx_412.sfs to /mnt/home (and also seen at /) in a hard drive install (full?) didn't get seen by menu->system->bootmanager at all. But in a terminal, if I cd to /mnt/home and type bootmanager, presto now it's found (by the upper-right selection) so bootmanager from the menu appears to start in the wrong directory. Now I have an entry in /etc/rc.d/BOOTLOG for this sfs and I reboot and ... nothing. No gcc found. So it's still not being mounted at boot.

Also, bootmanager from the command line spits out this:
/usr/sbin/bootmanager: line 85: cd: /initrd/: No such file or directory

and I get 412# as puppyversion. Is the hash at the end correct?
# cat /etc/puppyversion
412#

I've looked through the bootmanager script but it's too complicated for me. I hope this can be fixed in 4.2 and this should be a priority as some of the fun of puppy is in the sfs mounts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
vtpup


Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 1141
Location: Republic of Vermont

PostPosted: Wed 25 Feb 2009, 23:14    Post subject:  

@zvonik -- I have a frugal install, but I believe the Bootmanager cannot be used to add an sfs to a full hard drive installation.

There are other methods of adding the contents of an sfs to full installs. Do some more searching on these forums -- I believe Artie's thread talks about methods of doing it, along with a lot of other good advice for new users.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Pizzasgood


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 6270
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

PostPosted: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 00:43    Post subject:  

For a full-hd install:

Click the .sfs file. That will cause Puppy to mount it and open a window with the contents. Open a terminal there by either right-clicking and going to "Window -> Terminal Here", OR by pressing the back-quote key.

In the terminal, type this and press enter:
Code:
cp -a * /

When it finishes copying the files, you can close the terminal, click the .sfs again to umount it, and carry on. At this point the actual .sfs file is no longer needed.

_________________
Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
zvonik

Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 11:00    Post subject:  

Hi guys. Thanks for the replies. I found nothing in the manual or any other documentation that this shouldn't work with a hard drive install. I did find many posts from people with the same problem. And I did find the post about mounting the sfs and copying out the contents but that seemed like such an undocumented kluge in an otherwise elegant environment.

It would be nice to have a built-in sfs installer. Download an sfs, click on it in a file manager and it installs. Whether it installs to /mnt/home and uses the bootmanager behind the scenes or does a mount and copy, the user shouldn't have to know the details. The next release would be a nice place to start doing this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
vtpup


Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 1141
Location: Republic of Vermont

PostPosted: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 12:45    Post subject:  

I'm very much in favor of an error message when attempting to add an sfs and informational hints indicating that an sfs file can not be added to an HD full install in Bootmamanager. People should not need to search a forum to find out why something doesn't work in about 50% of installed systems.

As far as adding capability to install an sfs goes, I believe it might be more appropriate to install the contents of .sfs files for full HD installs in the Puppy package manager than in the Bootmanager, since it has nothing to do with boot loading, as it does for frugal installs. It is a true fileset installation.

Note that in a full install, programs added from an sfs integrate in the same fashion as those from a .pet. Basically you are just overwriting new files onto your file system. Therefore there is no advantage to using an sfs rather than a .pet, assuming what you want is available in a .pet.

In a frugal install, the sfs does behave differently than a .pet, and saves space in the personal savefile. It is an overlay, not an overwrite for existing saved files.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 8342

PostPosted: Fri 27 Feb 2009, 00:39    Post subject:  

Ok so is not so much a bug as a logic thing...

If a full install is present and a frugal install is added then until there is a pup_save the init script assumes that the full install is the pup_save...mode 6. This is not prevented by pfix=ram...I feel it should be to allow for that first boot although it now seems that this would now prevent creation of a pup_save...and if a blank pup_save was created would this mess up a first frugal boot?

Is mode 6 commonly used?...7 is for those flash internal drives I believe.

And yes having a frugal alongside a full install is very useful for testing...perhaps a better way of differentiating between a 'true full install' and a 'pup_save as a partition' is needed (presence of /initrd is a dead givaway)

crosseyed

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
PaulBx1

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2308
Location: Wyoming, USA

PostPosted: Fri 20 Mar 2009, 14:47    Post subject:  

Flyover info for drive icons is still wrong. It appears to be the case that whatever was first in there, stays there forever. For example, my sda1 was at one time ntfs, but has since been changed to ext3. But the flyover still says ntfs. Also when I right click the icon and select "edit item", the "Arguments to pass..." variable shown is "drive ntfs". Changing that to "drive ext3" does not change anything that I can tell.

Flyovers probably ought to be eliminated if they can't be depended on to give the correct information.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
PaulBx1

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2308
Location: Wyoming, USA

PostPosted: Sat 02 May 2009, 19:14    Post subject:  

Don't know if anyone pays attention to this thread any more... Confused

When I do "puppy pfix=fsck" for my heavy-encrypted pupsave, I get no indication an fsck is actually taking place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Béèm


Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 11782
Location: Brussels IBM Thinkpad R40, 256MB, 20GB, WiFi ipw2100. Frugal Lin'N'Win

PostPosted: Sat 02 May 2009, 19:18    Post subject:  

You could boot with (puppy) pfix=ram and run the fsck on the pup_save by hand. You'll get the messages.
_________________
Time savers:
Find packages in a snap and install using Puppy Package Manager (Menu).
Consult Wikka
Use peppyy's puppysearch
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
PaulBx1

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2308
Location: Wyoming, USA

PostPosted: Sat 02 May 2009, 19:29    Post subject:  

I finally figured out how to do that. Since it badly needed the fsck, it is clear "pfix=fsck" did nothing.

I'm guessing the modprobe of cryptoloop or aes is missing?

Last edited by PaulBx1 on Sat 02 May 2009, 19:42; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Béèm


Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 11782
Location: Brussels IBM Thinkpad R40, 256MB, 20GB, WiFi ipw2100. Frugal Lin'N'Win

PostPosted: Sat 02 May 2009, 19:37    Post subject:  

Good you saw the "light" Wink
_________________
Time savers:
Find packages in a snap and install using Puppy Package Manager (Menu).
Consult Wikka
Use peppyy's puppysearch
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sage

Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 4797
Location: GB

PostPosted: Mon 11 May 2009, 12:42    Post subject:  

Oh dear - third time lucky - popped this into the wrong section twice already.
Glad to see I'm not alone - yes, there's something wrong with the PUI/Xvideo-to-install, (but not the live version):

Don't normally look at the CE and hand-me-down versions - too many cooks, too many fingers burnt. This time I wanted to run up an old AMDKII-6/500. Had to burn to CD-R to use the old CD which can't read RW s, another thing I hate to waste resources on.

Big Mistake - again.

After a FULL install there emerged the return of an old friend - looping associated with the X system. Haven't seen that one for years.

Can't read the exact detail, but the first line talks about 'touch' - 'can't touch'
something about 'temp' files???
lines 401 & 402 ???
doesn't like something in /usr/X11R7/bin/xwin

copied the whole of the X11R7 directory from CD along with various other random guesses to no avail.

Absolute bummer. I know folks like to try hard, but bitter experience with virtually every distro teaches that the lead developer is generally the best option to complete a task successfully. Shame I hate the MarineBeast and he loves it....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
rerwin


Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 1529
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Wed 13 May 2009, 15:51    Post subject: Dir2pet script erratic with space chars in directory name
Subject description: Assumes incorrect name and may exhaust pupsave by creating infinite-sized .tar file!
 

The /usr/bin/dir2pet script reacts unexpectedly if a space character is included in the name of the directory to be made into a PET package. Inserting the following command as the first command (line 12 in 4.1.2; line 13 in 4.7.1) of the script would prevent the behavior and assist the user in correcting the problem.
Code:
[ "`echo "$@" | grep ' '`" != "" ] && echo -e "This script expects a directory name without embedded spaces.\nAdditional arguments are not appropriate.\nPlease remove or replace any space characters in the directory name." && exit #v413
Richard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
SilverPuppy


Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Fri 29 May 2009, 23:33    Post subject: Not exactly a kernel bug, but here goes......  

I discovered a problem with the desktop interface. If you access a very large directory with ROX, (10,000+ files will definitely do it) the ROX box crashes AND so does the entire desktop (icons and background.) Open programs and JWM continue to work. I'm using 4.1.2 and will never use 4.2.anything, so can you enlighten me as to whether there might be a fix in for this? It's a bit annoying to not be able to access ultra-large directories, as I do data recovery and sometimes create such beasts......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 4 of 5 [73 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » House Training » Bugs ( Submit bugs )
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: 0.1024s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0208s) ][ GZIP on ]