package management stinks

[Bruce B]

BruceB might do his own thing, but some of us need a bit of a shove in the right direction and more confidence before we get to that stage :wink:

That's what I think I did, I think - went in the right direction.

I was distributing packages. Soon I realized there is a problem and I stopped. I just checked the page below and it appears to me I stopped in 2005.

http://pupweb.org/wikka/DotPupsContributions

~

[Luluc]

What Bruce said is true about the package manager, its handy as a tool to help you get to where your going but we arent tied into using it, and most experience users just grab the static install of the program they wanna use from the vendors site (skype from the skype site, assaultcube from the assultcube site etc...) install them, hunt around for a bit for a few deps, maybe remove some unneeded stuff to strip it a bit and thats it.

I've been around here for about a couple of months and gotten used to seeing several complaints being dismissed because "Puppy is supposed to be that way, limited but simple, in the name of newbie-friendliness." But now, all of a sudden, it is argued that "most Puppy users are savvy, will get by on their own and don't need no fancy-shmancy package manager."

Well, which is it? It is beginning to sound like the Puppy community will just say whatever suits their mood du jour about just leaving things the way they are.

I've said it elsewhere and I will say it again: the Puppy package manager is one of the most absolutely horrible things I have ever seen in my whole life regarding the use of a computer. The only worse thing I can think of is loading programs from a cassete tape on a ZX Spectrum computer. Yes, that was worse.

[sickgut]

hi luluc, in answer to your perfectly valid argument re your last post:

"Puppy is supposed to be that way, limited but simple, in the name of newbie-friendliness." But now, all of a sudden, it is argued that "most Puppy users are savvy, will get by on their own and don't need no fancy-shmancy package manager."

Yes comming into the Puppy world we are all newbies, incapable of installing programs other than what is in the package manager and the links to software that the helpful people on the irc support chan give you.

it is quite limiting for a new linux user to install all the software they need/ want.

But what usually happens is that the new users gradually learn how to make their own pet packages or install software from other sites, in a gradual learning process as this is the only way to survive in the world of Puppy.

So yes, the package management is crappy and it needs to be fixed up into something better. But most users, if they stick with puppy end up making their own packages. I dont know the exact ratio of people who try puppy, then leave and move onto something else after a week or 2 due to poor package management, compared with the users who stick around and learn to make their own packages, but i think it is safe to say that with better package management, we would grab the newbies and keep them.

To keep our newbies happy we need better package management. But to the experienced users it doesnt really matter as they generally ignore the package manager and make their own custom packages the way they want them.

So Luluc, we do definately indeed need a better package system, the sooner the better.

[sickgut]

sry to keep hogging the thread, but i like bruceb have also stopped making puppy specific packages, this is because it doesnt really fix any problem. It is only a bandaid effect and it i feel it only encourages disunity in the puppy community, there is always 10x different packages made every day that do the same thing all of varying quality and i feel it doesnt help anyone.

Maybe if there was a process in which packages are sorted and organized propperly such as like happens with debian, this would be better. we need only one decent package that does one thing, not 10 different pidgin pets released every day. we are doing 10 times the amount of labour we should be doing as a community and its no wonder some people loose faith in the whole process.

due to the lack of a good package management system i have been trying to help newbies make their own packages, i feel this is more effective but ofcause there is 10 newbies who will slide through the cracks and not get looked after correctly compared to the 1 who makes it through the initiation process.

i also believe that the sooner we get a system that grabs packages from other major distros repos and installs them correctly and strips them down to puppy size, the better. we shouldnt all be slaving away making custom puppy packages if there are a million packages already made, waiting to be download.

ok ill stop hogging the thread, i am quite passionate about package management.

[RetroTechGuy]

I have too agree. The package management is lacking.

I'm sure it will improve.

I think that one of the big "holes" is that we really don't (or didn't*) have a reliable, long-term stable repository for the package.

And only rarely can a user tell what a package does, or is useful for, by the name alone -- we need a descriptive concordance or index to go with our repository.

* - more and more stuff is being stored at ibiblio. Though the loss of the majority of the content at puppy.asia really hurt... There too we could have used a proper descriptive index of the files.

[sc0ttman]

I'm sure others will disagree, but I find the PPM good enough

I like the newer version, zigberts scalable GUI

I like when people add the dependencies to the .PET files,
so that the deps are automatically installed, if needed.

The biggest problem is not the PPM itself, IMHO..

The main issue for me, is the lack of packages listed in the repos,
compared with other distros - there is not so much there.

However, as has been pointed out already on this thread,
like most Puppy users:

- I get my packages from elsewhere (not the PPM or official repos)
- I compile what I can
- I can find most things that I need on the forum

I worked with apt-get a fair bit, I prefer to manually add stuff,
or at least have total control over what gets added.

[Bruce B]

I'm curious what others think. I'll tell you what I think.

I think if I go around clicking on .pet files, it won't take long before something goes wrong.

What do any of you think about this?

~

[RetroTechGuy]

I'm curious what others think. I'll tell you what I think.

I think if I go around clicking on .pet files, it won't take long before something goes wrong.

What do any of you think about this?

~

I have historically found the same. It often seemed to be and issue with version compatibility (since finding the correct version often works).

I typically make a backup of my pupsave/lupusave before installing new software.

[nitehawk]

Yes,...
I also discovered (the hard way!) that not all .pets will work with different versions. Then sometimes ya gotta get a little creative. Like going "outside" of Puppy's repository to find what you need, and stuff that will work on your Puppy version. Some stuff on the Slackware DVD (and the second CD of Vector Linux SOHO 6 edition) will work on Wary...for instance. (Not all of the apps,..just the Java,..Win32 codecs,...OpenOffice, xscreensavers, Opera,....etc. etc).

[Lobster]

There is always something being done
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02312

Basically Puppy does move fast and is often divergent.
We used to be in a situation where packages had to be compiled, optimised and tested every 6 weeks
Barryk did most of that himself
Puppy contains a full suite of usability but users demand more.

For example I want to test out the latest Chrome Browser
Just downloaded and installed the SFS for Lucid525

Here is more info on software
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Software

Puppy
Different.

[Bruce B]

Barryk did most of that himself :shock:

Amazing but true. Someday, I hope to accomplish in a month what he can do in a day.

~

[SimpleWater]

I may have given the impression that i am of a newbie nature, well that may be, but really, searching for dependencies is a rather tedious task. And after the whole "new2dir make install", and before "dir2pet", i would have to manually find and remove every single file that was installed. (not fun)

As you can see, i'm probably not using the best methods, because the pet packaging 101 thread is horribly outdated and is not thorough. So, yes if you still want to make a decent tutorial sickgut. I encourage it.

Still, the ppm really needs a major makeover

[sc0ttman]

And after the whole "new2dir make install", and before "dir2pet", i would have to manually find and remove every single file that was installed. (not fun)

Boot with pfix=ram if you must

And I have always found that as long as you know which versions of ubuntu, debian and/or slackware are compatible with your puppy, and you remember to bookmark a decent repo for that version, then you have easy access to loads of working packages and their libs. Easy.

For example, a standard Puppy 4.2 is compatible with Debian Lenny (Stable) - you can safely install nearly anything you like from there (apart from debian specific setup packages of course) and its deps, then it will almost certainly work OK

[r1tz]

@Sickgut, really good going on your progress. The whole universal repository system, is sounding very nice. Actually that sounds like the ultimate solution, so hopefully development is going well. Debian puppy also sounds intresting as well, although it probably won't have the support from the forum Rolling Eyes

Hmmm... I think, that if an extra 40mb can give full(or almost full) compatibility with debian, it might actually be a great idea.

[sickgut]

hi people
http://www.thepussycatforest.info/linux
pussy linux is released. if you remove the pussyxtra.squshfs from the iso or .img then you are left with 67mb for the base live system and 140mb for the pussyos.squashfs
this is compareable to puppy +40mb or so. puppy version 5.0 was 160mb and didnt include a browser. There is still alot of fat that can be trimmed, and if some puppy devs where able get pussy and "pup it up" then you gotta wonder what it would be like to use pussys apt-get install system and have all of puppies nice things too, that would be the ultimate and a world class OS.

so far ive had basicly no one interested in pussy, altho i have hosted more than 100 downloads i dont think its getting the attention it deserves. Its not finnished and it is missing things, its missing the puppy custom stuff like pmount and some puppy specific apps and install scripts and people look at pussy and say its not a puppy. this is true, the whole point of releasing it in this form is so that some puppy devs might fit the cool puppy things in it and turn it into a puppy

now pussy is 100% compatible with debian, it isnt 99% or offers some partial compatibility. It is 100% able to apt-get any thing from debian repos and it will work 100% of the time. This is a 100% working solution to package management.

apt-get update
apt-get instalt whateverthehellyouwant

[nitehawk]

For example, a standard Puppy 4.2 is compatible with Debian Lenny (Stable) - you can safely install nearly anything you like from there (apart from debian specific setup packages of course) and its deps, then it will almost certainly work OK

..hey,..that's interesting! I have an old Puppy 4.2 cd around here somewhere,...and an old stack of the Lenny DVDs. What about Debian Squeeze,..(probably won't work with Squeeze) (?). Guess I'll find out.

[RetroTechGuy]

For example, a standard Puppy 4.2 is compatible with Debian Lenny (Stable) - you can safely install nearly anything you like from there (apart from debian specific setup packages of course) and its deps, then it will almost certainly work OK

..hey,..that's interesting! I have an old Puppy 4.2 cd around here somewhere,...and an old stack of the Lenny DVDs. What about Debian Squeeze,..(probably won't work with Squeeze) (?). Guess I'll find out.

I have installed a number of packages from Squeeze in both 4.3.1 and 5.20 -- note, backup your pupsave/lupusave before trying this. And use caution with large package (which are likely to have many missing dependencies).

[dru5k1]

@SimpleWater: I hope you noticed the PPM has a big ConfigurePackageManager button that you can press to open up the 'whole' ubuntu lucid -main,universe,and multiverse- repositories???

@sickgut: I'm glad pussylinux is out, it sounds great and I'm sure to check it out!

[Bruce B]

What Bruce said is true about the package manager, its handy as a tool to help you get to where your going but we arent tied into using it, and most experience users just grab the static install of the program they wanna use from the vendors site (skype from the skype site, assaultcube from the assultcube site etc...) install them, hunt around for a bit for a few deps, maybe remove some unneeded stuff to strip it a bit and thats it.

I've been around here for about a couple of months and gotten used to seeing several complaints being dismissed because "Puppy is supposed to be that way, limited but simple, in the name of newbie-friendliness." But now, all of a sudden, it is argued that "most Puppy users are savvy, will get by on their own and don't need no fancy-shmancy package manager."

Well, which is it? It is beginning to sound like the Puppy community will just say whatever suits their mood du jour about just leaving things the way they are.

It looks like good arguments to me.

I am not the community, rather an one user, just like anybody, except I have a lot of experience.

Around 2000 I decided to leave Windows and learn Linux. The keyword here is 'learn'.

People who don't take the time to learn are simply not going to be as capable administrators over their computers as those who learned.

Puppy is designed to be newbie friendly to be sure. Users want to add software not included with Puppy's ISO file. Puppy has a package manager as well as packages.

I don't use it and if have enhanced Puppy's software considerably without it, it can't be argued that it is needed.

In a lot of cases packages aren't needed either. A couple days ago I compiled and installed the latest version of Geany text editor and Bluefish HTML editor. No reason to package either.

If a person wants to get the best out of any operating system, he will need to learn the operating system. Learning is not as if one stops living or doesn't have a computer to work with while he learns. One learns on gradient. The more one learns, the easier things become.

~

[sunburnt]

I didn`t read this whole thread, but I have said the same long ago.
I also suggested a simple fix that`s very advanced and has many benefits.

Make Squash files the new file package format, no installing or removal needed !!!
So there`s no tracking of files ( no mess ), and no space taken in the Save file.

You mount the file ( NOT Unioned ) and use it just that way.

This is the idea I suggested for ChoicePup, and it worked very well.