The State of Package Management

What features/apps/bugfixes needed in a future Puppy

Should Puppy's package format be changed?

Yes, without backwards compatibility.
11
28%
Yes, with backwards compatibility.
10
26%
No, but the PET format should be standardized/stricter.
8
21%
No, the PET format works fine.
10
26%
 
Total votes: 39

Message
Author
jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#196 Post by jpeps »

sunburnt wrote: It has a nice set of dependency tree files that make it work well.
It doesn't work "well" at all. That's why they're presently considering a whole new system, which most likely won't help much.

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#197 Post by sunburnt »

Well compared to Puppy`s method of dependency tracking. I think it`s left up to the package builder.
Since when don`t dependency tree files work well? Is there a better way to include all the files needed?
Well... There`s always static building of apps. I guess, but it isn`t a favored method for obvious reasons.

Tiny Core is a modified legacy setup, but that was the easiest way to make use of the existing packages.
To really fix Linux small changes or even bigger ones have proven insufficient. Real change is needed.
I`ll have to take a look and see if there`s an ongoing discussion about directions that Tiny Core might take.

disciple
Posts: 6984
Joined: Sun 21 May 2006, 01:46
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#198 Post by disciple »

To really fix Linux small changes or even bigger ones have proven insufficient.
Linux is broken? News to me...
Do you know a good gtkdialog program? Please post a link here

Classic Puppy quotes

ROOT FOREVER
GTK2 FOREVER

anewuser
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2012, 20:00

edit (blank msg initially)

#199 Post by anewuser »

OT

Long interesting thread. Have any conclusions been made? And decisions from this thread will be made?

Currently end users have no way to tell if a pet will/would/could work on their puppies due to the vast ammount of versatility puppies provide (basically a toy to play with) and most likely yes, with modifications/upgrades or even regresions.

In order for a pet to work it's needing to be based off bary's branches without tweaks/modifications/tunning (almost the most basic set up) though when he upgrades key stuff on his setup, all pets depending on his upgrades break, as shown by posts/experience.

reference
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02595
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02594
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02490
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02456 (#2 gtk upgrade, key puppy component eg)
and so on...puppy isn't for the casual end users but for people willing to try their hand at fixing.

Key components of the system updated leads to broken/needing to upgrade apps/pets depending on those key components. Dependencies here and there (normal in any OS, not what's being discussed anyway [let's not get into that either]) but my point was that pets work if made with the main branches in mind, without tweaks or modifications, for the basic lines distributed (barry's).

..Now I get why he call his distros puppies...he's the top dog of the pack :D

if it were a team decision I'd change my "No, but the PET format should be standardized/stricter." to "Yes, without backwards compatibility." but's it's up to barry's actually as far as his puppies are concerned.

my two cents
Aaaaaaaaitch ty! (tags) :D
PS: I'd love to have this thread as a txt/htm/pdf or all the post in a single page view for offline reading. Great ideas in here.
Last edited by anewuser on Mon 12 Mar 2012, 21:27, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Aitch
Posts: 6518
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2007, 15:57
Location: Chatham, Kent, UK

Re: edit (blank msg initially)

#200 Post by Aitch »

anewuser wrote:OT

Long interesting thread. Have any conclusions been made? And decisions from this thread will be made?

Currently end users have no way to tell if a pet will/would/could work on their pets due to the vast ammount of versatility puppies provide (basically a toy to play with) and most likely yes, with modifications/upgrades or even regresions.

In order for a pet to work it's needing to be based off bary's branches without tweaks/modifications/tunning (almost the most basic set up) though when he upgrades key stuff on his setup, all pets depending on his upgrades break, as shown by posts/experience.

reference
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02595
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02594
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02490
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=02456 (#2 gtk upgrade, key puppy component eg)

Key components of the system updated leads to broken/needing to upgrade apps/pets depending on those key components. Dependencies here and there (normal in any OS, not what's being discussed anyway [let's not get into that either]) but my point was that pets work if made with the main branches in mind, without tweaks or modifications, for the basic lines distributed (barry's).

..Now I get why he call his distros puppies...he's the top dog of the pack :D
if it were a team decision I'd change my "No, but the PET format should be standardized/stricter." to "Yes, without backwards compatibility." but's it's up to barry's actually as far as his puppies are concerned.

my two cents
url tags sorted, caused blank post

Aitch :)

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#201 Post by jpeps »

sunburnt wrote:Well compared to Puppy`s method of dependency tracking. I think it`s left up to the package builder.
Since when don`t dependency tree files work well? Is there a better way to include all the files needed?
well..that's easy. It doesn't work well when there's some dep name change and your OS won't boot.

Right...the package builder determines what the deps are; so that kindof rules out woof, doesn't it ? Every flavor would have to have it's own unique and maintained database, which sounds boring to me, when I can tap into a universe of packages elsewhere.

User avatar
Aitch
Posts: 6518
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2007, 15:57
Location: Chatham, Kent, UK

#202 Post by Aitch »

anewuser wrote:PS: I'd love to have this thread as a txt/htm/pdf or all the post in a single page view for offline reading. Great ideas in here.
try this, p2, 24th December version :wink:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy//viewtopic.php?t=74404

Aitch :)

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#203 Post by sunburnt »

Yep... All part of what`s known as dependency hell, and I don`t see any method that solves it.

But again... Static compilation does make the app. work without problems with what`s included.
There`s still dependencies but fewer of them. I`ve had good luck with large static apps. in Puppy.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#204 Post by jpeps »

sunburnt wrote:
But again... Static compilation does make the app. work without problems with what`s included.
..only in theory. How do you know what the right dependencies are to include in the static package? We live in a dynamic world, where all the components are continually shifting...unless you want to include all the xlibs, etc., for every package..and even then I'm not sure. What about the kernel, the chain, etc. Also, don't forget to include everything needed for every brand of computer in your static package.

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#205 Post by sunburnt »

jpeps; I kinda covered all of that... Only what`s in the compile can be vouched for. And yes, I commented earlier about the difficulty of finding the correct lib. for a build.

It`s a twisted mess only made worse by poor utilization of the proper build methods. In the case of Puppy it`s almost to the point all apps. need to be built with Puppy.
But I think verified add-on lib. SFS files could help shore up the dependency mess. Then package builders have a more solid base, reducing the size of static builds.
Last edited by sunburnt on Fri 16 Mar 2012, 19:02, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Moose On The Loose
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2011, 14:54

#206 Post by Moose On The Loose »

sunburnt wrote:Yep... All part of what`s known as dependency hell, and I don`t see any method that solves it.

But again... Static compilation does make the app. work without problems with what`s included.
There`s still dependencies but fewer of them. I`ve had good luck with large static apps. in Puppy.
In most cases, the static compile is the best way to go. You can make a script that flips in and out different versions of libraries. For some programs where the compiled version is all I could get, this works. Basically, when you want to start the program you run a script not the main file. This script flips in the libraries that make the the program work, and then flips them back out when it is done. It means you only get to run one program at a time but sometimes that is the best that can be done.

Many times even when the alleged source code for a program is published, you can't make it compile unless you have exactly the same system as the author.

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#207 Post by sunburnt »

Moose On The Loose; It`s almost as if trying to deal with and fix standard builds is sort of hopeless, it`s never really going to be right anyway.

amigo commented on the hassles of static builds, so I suggested making a set of tools to automate the whole process as much as possible.

Again... A few extra sets of SFS lib. add-ons would potentially make static builds smaller and all builds would have a better base.
Short of this, those libs. might be best built with Puppy in a variant. But making a Puppy variant for each special purpose is nuts.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#208 Post by jpeps »

sunburnt wrote:But making a Puppy variant for each special purpose is nuts.
Perfect...that will make you eligible to join the tc "team"

User avatar
Moose On The Loose
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2011, 14:54

#209 Post by Moose On The Loose »

sunburnt wrote:Moose On The Loose; It`s almost as if trying to deal with and fix standard builds is sort of hopeless, it`s never really going to be right anyway.
Sometimes there just is no better way than to fiddle with libraries until the program works. It would be very nice if absolutely everything I will ever need was available but really that is too much to hope for. I can either reboot into a different Linux distro to get those program or fiddle.

Unfortunately, it isn't something that is really worthy of making into a *.pet. I've got the things I need to work so I'm using them as they are.

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#210 Post by greengeek »

Stumbled upon this old thread/comment from 2005 and found it interesting in the light of this particular topic:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 0&start=23
and:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 0&start=29
.

User avatar
Aitch
Posts: 6518
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2007, 15:57
Location: Chatham, Kent, UK

#211 Post by Aitch »

Vector linux?...maybe my comment on 18th sparked that...?

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 978#620978

Aitch :)

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

#212 Post by greengeek »

Aitch wrote:Vector linux?...maybe my comment on 18th sparked that...?
Actually I was picking up on this:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 0&start=32
Maybe micko was picking up on this:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 0&start=28
So maybe all that came from your comment?

Hows that for a dev/loop?? :-)

User avatar
Aitch
Posts: 6518
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2007, 15:57
Location: Chatham, Kent, UK

#213 Post by Aitch »

I think I was hinting that Barry used to use Vector Dev Tools,'back in the days'....? :wink:

That's a real devloop :D

Aitch :)

User avatar
DocSalvage
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat 30 Jun 2012, 18:59
Location: Tallahassee, FL, USA
Contact:

#214 Post by DocSalvage »

Am a programmer of 30 years and 30 some languages but new here and new to Puppy so I'll briefly throw in my 1 cent worth...

I've just spent an hour trying to find PupGet and Puppy Basic so I can install unrpm.undeb.pup so I can extract Synergy 1.3.1 .rpm to install it on on Puppy 5.2.2. From this thread, I now see this has probably been folly due to fully understandable incompatibilities. We can't make software better without breaking a few old versions.

However, I wish the current Package Manager included perhaps a link from the main screen to a help page explaining step-by-step what a newbie might do (like finding the source and recompiling) in this situation.

From this thread, it appears that the package manager definitely needs to be more robust. That probably means a rewrite that can't be backward compatible. However, to remain inviting to newcomers, it really needs to guide users to a solution, if there is one, for using software that only exists via what will be 2 obsolete package managers or source. A builtin launcher for Xarchive, make, configure, etc. for those source compiles would be very helpful too.

Puppy Linux is the best *nx I've ever used!

Kudus to Barry and all that keep making it better!

As I continue to convert 6 systems to Puppy, I look forward to many happy [Return]s.

noryb009
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat 20 Mar 2010, 22:28

#215 Post by noryb009 »

Thank you, DocSalvage. You pretty much summarized why the PPM should be remade: if a programmer of 30 years can't install a program within a few minutes (let alone an hour), how can we expect regular users to do so?

Puppy claims to be user friendly, yet programmers can't even install things.
From this thread, I now see this has probably been folly due to fully understandable incompatibilities. We can't make software better without breaking a few old versions.
It's not understandable incompatibilities. Pretty much every other linux distro has a better package manager then Puppy, and you can easily install programs on them.

Puppy is a great distro, but it's package management is it's weakness.

Post Reply