The time now is Fri 24 May 2013, 20:22
All times are UTC - 4 |
| Author |
Message |
jmarsden
Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 263
Location: California, USA
|
 Posted: Fri 13 Jan 2006, 06:07 Post subject:
|
|
Here's the list of changes to dpupmaker.sh since 1.4. The big new (and so experimental!) feature is the generation of "source dotpups", making it very easy to publish the sources used alongside the compiled binaries. | Code: | # Revision 1.6 2006/01/13 09:07:51 root
# Source code now installed in /usr/local/archive
# Fixed size calculation for source dotpups
# Fixed registration of source dotpups with pupget database
#
# Revision 1.5 2006/01/13 05:34:19 root
# Removed make distclean as it is no longer a common target.
# Check exit status of ./configure command and exit upon failure.
# Include dpupmaker.sh version in created dotpup.sh files.
# Add creation of "source dotpup" files (experimental new feature).
|
Jonathan
P.S. The change log above was generated using RCS, which was itself installed from a dotpup created using dpupmaker.sh -- this means dpupmaker.sh helped build and package RCS, which is now helping maintain dpupmaker.sh 
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
MU
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 13642
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Jan 2006, 08:10 Post subject:
|
|
Used it to create a dotpup:
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?p=32791#32791
I wanted to compile to /usr (because /usr/local/lib is not in Puppys /etc/ld.so.conf), so I ran
# ./dpupmaker.sh /mnt/hda11/_installfiles/bridge-utils/bridge-utils-1.0.6.tar.gz "" CONSAPPS --prefix=/usr
Did not work, so I changed 2 lines from "/usr/local" to "/usr"
I also added
xmessage -center installation finished!
in the end of the parts, where dotpup.sh is created.
Good work!
Thanks,Mark
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jmarsden
Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 263
Location: California, USA
|
| Posted: Fri 13 Jan 2006, 12:58 Post subject:
|
|
| MU wrote: | | Used it to create a dotpup: http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?p=32791#32791 |
Cool, that is the first reported successful use of it by someone other than me
| Quote: | | I wanted to compile to /usr (because /usr/local/lib is not in Puppys /etc/ld.so.conf) |
Understood. I've added it to mine, a few days ago. Maybe there should be some discussion about adding /usr/local/lib to the default ld.so.conf for Puppy 1.0.8 or 2.0, or both?? Or, just like the use of /etc/profile.local , it might be useful to add a line | Code: | | include /etc/ld.so.conf.local |
to it, so that people can customize their library load paths without editing the "official" config? Fedora uses local config directories rather than a single .local file, for both /etc/profile and ldconfig, which makes it easy for packages to drop in additions to either the profile or their library path as they install, so it uses | Code: | | include ld.so.conf.d/*.conf |
which also seems a good approach.
| Quote: | | Did not work, so I changed 2 lines from "/usr/local" to "/usr" |
Yes, I hard-coded Barry's request to all dotpup creators to have their dotpups install into /usr/local. Maybe that was a bit too inflexible?
| Quote: | | I also added xmessage -center installation finished! in the end of the parts, where dotpup.sh is created. |
If you like that, that's fine. I'm personally less comfortable with using xmessage within dotpup.sh -- it makes the install fail if the end user chooses to install from the command line in text mode, instead of from Rox under X. Even under X, it forces the end user to click on OK (to get rid of the message) for each package installed if run in a loop (I have a couple of little scripts, including a simple command line dotpup installer, so that I can compile and build and install a whole set of packages totally unattended, based on a text config file listing them and the options they need to give to dpupmaker.sh, for example). If I downloaded 50 dotpups and wanted to install them all, I'd perhaps be a little irritated at being forced to click OK that many times The Unix / Linux convention for scripts (and for commands in general) is that "silence means it worked".
My thinking on this is that, if you like having that message appear at the end of every dotpup install done by Rox, then it would be more suitable to put the xmessage call into the script within Rox that handles .pup files, once, than to include it in every dotpup.sh. That approach also makes localization simpler (just one place to change the message to the user's preferred language, and you don't have to recreate every dotpup.sh file in every dotpup to support a new language!). The dotpups, and so the dotpup.sh files, that I create are 100% end-user-language-independent, by design. But I do understand that this is a personal choice, and that some of the dotpups out there do not currently follow that philosophy.
Jonathan
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bugman
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2131
Location: buffalo commons
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 15:36 Post subject:
|
|
I would like to say that I am a new user and a complete idiot (the total package!) but I like doing stuff in a terminal. I learn things, I feel cool, I get to whine and complain in this forum when nothing works!
That being said, I downloaded, unzipped, and ran dpupmaker on the Chimera tarball. I got:
./dpupmaker.sh: line 121: ./configure: No such file or directory
dpupmaker.sh: Error: Unable to configure application chimera-2.0a19
I checked line 121 and it said:
./configure ${4:-"--prefix=/usr/local"} ||
Should I change this to something else (there were earlier posts in this thread about /usr that I did not understand)? Is Chimera un-puppable (I think I saw someone in here--or was it the DSL forum--using it)? Should I put aside a week and read the f'ing Rute manual?
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
MU
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 13642
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 15:54 Post subject:
|
|
you should provide a link to the download, so we could look it up.
The standard way of compiling (used by this script, too) is
./configure
make
make install
But not every program uses this way.
Some only have
make
some only have
install.sh
some have
whatever.suffix
This is one of the reasons, why my Dotpup-wizard was based on binary files, you could "prepare" (compile) a program the way it wants it (manually), and then create a dotpup from the resulting binaries.
Mark
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bugman
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2131
Location: buffalo commons
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 16:03 Post subject:
|
|
I'd tried to compile it the normal way and that didn't work either. I have no idea why I though making a dotpup would work. But it's Sunday and I have had no book sales all day and I got bored...
Here's a link to the file:
http://www.chimera.org/download/chimera-2.0a19.tar.gz
It's yet another small browser, I like trying them out. Some day when I'm feeling really crazy I'll download that Mung Linux thingie just to see what Mungbrowser is like. Maybe when my meds wear off...
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
MU
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 13642
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 16:42 Post subject:
|
|
Yes, this is a typical example.
/doc/INSTALL says:
xmkmf -a
make
Then you get a binary.
Make stops with an error for an additional HTML-page, but you can ignore that.
The binary is in /chimera
It is 2.3 MB.
You should finally strip it (remove Debugging-code):
cd chimera
strip chimera
The result is a 221 kb -file "chimera" that you can run.
Mark
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bugman
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2131
Location: buffalo commons
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 16:46 Post subject:
|
|
Thanks MU, I promise some day I will learn what I'm doing...
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
MU
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 13642
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 16:54 Post subject:
|
|
It took me years to learn these "tricks", so don't apologize
That is quite special. For this reason the Dotpups were made in puppy, so that the "custom user" doesn't have to get in trouble with such small little inconveniencies.
I wanted to find out how things work, and I had to (for the job).
But sometimes it was really annoying.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bugman
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2131
Location: buffalo commons
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 16:56 Post subject:
|
|
I did it and it worked. I'd done those things before, except for the "strip" command, but I think it must've been that error that made me think it had all gone wrong. Plus not realizing where the binary was. I tried typing "chimera" in xrun but I'm guessing (learning?) that I'd have to have a line in a path ($PATH? or something like that?) file somewhere first?
Now it's time to see if the browser is any good. I love Dillo but need cookies!
Reading the Rute page SHOULD have been my New Year's resolution, especially since I've forgotten what I DID resolve already...
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
MU
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 13642
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 17:00 Post subject:
|
|
cd chimera
./chimera
Or use the absolute path:
/root/downloads/chimera/chimera
You can click it , too in rox.
But it does not display dotpups.de , seems to have problems with CSS.
Mark
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bugman
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2131
Location: buffalo commons
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 17:11 Post subject:
|
|
Oh, I'd figured out the click on the binary in Rox bit, it's just the typing it in xrun that flummoxed me at first. And I've got it working from the jwm menu as well.
It's interesting that you said to "cd chimera" even though the "chimera" folder is inside another ("chimera-2.0a19"); in DOS that wouldn't work, right? Does Linux find folders within folders without the full path being specified? That doesn't make any sense, there's several folders in different paths with the same name, "bin" being a good example.
Hey Murga, I'm going to start charging myself every time I ask a basic question in here and send you (or Barry) the money at the end of the year, okay? It won't be much (my income is way below the poverty line) but the two of you deserve every penny of it...
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bugman
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2131
Location: buffalo commons
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 17:15 Post subject:
|
|
MU, thanks much for your help. Sadly though, Chimera is not the answer I was looking for. Maybe the answer is to learn to program (I used to write 6502 assembly in both monitor and hex codes 20 years ago) and add cookies to Dillo myself. If I eat lots of healthy food I may live long enough to get it done...
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
MU
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 13642
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 17:22 Post subject:
|
|
| bugman wrote: |
It's interesting that you said to "cd chimera" even though the "chimera" folder is inside another ("chimera-2.0a19");. |
No, I assumed you are already in /chimera-2.0a19 for the compilation.
But you can navigate quite fast in the shell with the auto-completition.
cd chim[tab] will show chimera
If there is more than one match, hit[tab] again, to see them all.
Concerning Dillo, please look here:
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=5434&highlight=
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bugman
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2131
Location: buffalo commons
|
| Posted: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 17:46 Post subject:
|
|
That's pretty funny, I have the patched version, so I am getting cookies! Dumb. I had tried it on the used book sites I work through once before and was having problems; I'll have to try and figure out which site it was and why I was asked to log in repeatedly...
But then there's that other problem. Dillo doesn't print either...
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Unsorted
