Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

zenfunk · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 221

Haven't been around for a while. Job, holiday, relationship kept me busy. Anyways, I'm in the mood of creating another puplet.
This time it should be about sailing boating and amateur radio software. Installed on an old laptop will be like an instant onboard computer- will be great.

However. I don't want to go through the tedious job of endless forum searches, looking on various dotpup and .pet sites for my packages.

As I said I haven't been in the forum much lately, so I'm not very familliar with the current status of dpup, slaxer pup, u-pup etc. I know that the 3.01 series are somehow slackware 12.0 compatible. How far ahead ar the woof builds- are they useable? What works and what not.

Thank you very much in advance for your input.

Christian

PupGeek · Joined: 06 Sep 2009 Posts: 388

The Puppy 4.x series can use slackware 12 binaries. you can install the Slapt-get pet for it and get all the slackware tarballs you need. I tried the 'woof' thing and it just gave me more errors than I had the patience for, considering I didn't really need to build a new puppy from the ground up. I find that the basic remaster tool is plenty sufficient for my needs.

disciple · Posted: Sat 03 Oct 2009, 19:46 Post subject:

PupGeek · Joined: 06 Sep 2009 Posts: 388

Actually, I run a lot of slackware binaries in puppy 4.2. I also run plenty of .deb's as well.... what really matters is what kernel they were compiled for. I sometimes even import some of the software from my ArtistX LiveDVD into puppy 4.2, as they have very close kernel versions (Puppy's 2.6.25.16 and ArtistX's 2.6.25.2). I will admit that sometimes it does not work but if I boot up with a pfix=ram, then I have nothing to lose by trying anyways.

disciple · Posted: Sun 04 Oct 2009, 08:02 Post subject:

Yes... in my experience the kernel doesn't actually affect most programs, but the versions of other libraries and what options they were compiled with does, and woe betide anybody who wants to borrow from Ubuntu, as they seem to ADD dependencies for their packages.

zenfunk · Joined: 18 Mar 2009 Posts: 221

OK, I finally made the jump and tried out dpup. So far I'm impressed I must say. No problem in using the debian repositories, dependencies are resolved nicely- congratulations to the builders. I was able install a dozen apps or so in no time. Something that would have cost me weeks in traditional puppy.

You know the drill- hunt down the devx.sfs, 'mount' it, reboot, try to compile.... doesn't work of course... go to the forums, ask Tuuxxx, MU or someone of the regulars to package it for you... wait a couple of hours (Thanks a lot to you all- great community), download, install - bingo, next app.....(repeat).

Please don't take the above paragraph seriously- it's meant mostly ironic. Wink

Cheers, Christian

PupGeek · Joined: 06 Sep 2009 Posts: 388

yes disciple, definitely true with the libraries. I gotta confess that my new favorite way to add software is from a live cd/dvd...... real cheesy workaround to installing packages..... I just make a directory in /root/my-roxapps named after the app, include a usr directory containing the bin, lib, and share directories and just mount the live dvd's squashfs and copy and paste the app and dependencies..... I write an AppRun to export the paths and test the program from the CLI and it tells me what dependencies it needs..... no risk of messing up my existing puppy that way and if I put the roxapp together with a plain puppy session I can include ALL dependencies for convenience's sake. I am thinking of adding a function in the AppRun (or maybe a separate script) that will offer the option of installing the program or running it as a roxapp as well. And if the roxapp becomes too big, I just make the main app directory into a .sfs file and have the AppRun script mount it then run from the mount point.

PupGeek · Joined: 06 Sep 2009 Posts: 388