Why no Arch Linux-based Puppy? (Solved)

For talk and support relating specifically to Puppy derivatives
Message
Author
User avatar
jplt3
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon 08 Apr 2019, 20:40
Location: Planet Earth

Why no Arch Linux-based Puppy? (Solved)

#1 Post by jplt3 »

Hello all,

why there is no popular Puppy based on Archlinux ?

I have not enough skill to build one , if is it possible ?
Last edited by jplt3 on Fri 04 Oct 2019, 14:42, edited 1 time in total.

s243a
Posts: 2580
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 04:48
Contact:

Re: Archlinux

#2 Post by s243a »

jplt3 wrote:Hello all,

why there is no popular puupy based on archlinux ?

I have not enough skill to build one , if is it possible ?
Woof-CE dropped support for Arch linux but there are older pups:

http://wikka.puppylinux.com/Archpup
http://wikka.puppylinux.com/AlphaOS
http://alphaos.tuxfamily.org/
http://alphaos.tuxfamily.org/forum/

There is also at least one 64bit version. See alphaOS
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=92727
Find me on [url=https://www.minds.com/ns_tidder]minds[/url] and on [url=https://www.pearltrees.com/s243a/puppy-linux/id12399810]pearltrees[/url].

User avatar
mikeslr
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon 16 Jun 2008, 21:20
Location: 500 seconds from Sol

#3 Post by mikeslr »

ArchLInux is a rolling release. Its structure, package manager and repositories are designed around that concept. Puppies are not and Woof, the tool to create Puppies, isn't designed to create a rolling release. I don't recall with certainty, but have a vague recollection that the ArchPups were not able to build in rolling release capability.

Beyond the capability of performing upgrades to a running operating system, I am unaware of any advantage ArchLinux offers that debian, slackware or Ubuntu lack. It is possible to woof a 'bare-bones' Puppy based on any of those. And unlike ArchLinux which expects of its Users a certain amount of familiarity with Linux, Puppies are intended to be 'newie friendly'.

As a result of Puppy's modular nature, kernel upgrades can in fact be accomplished from running Puppy. I suspect the difficulty with doing an entire upgrade involves, at least, glibc libraries. glibc libraries are 'foundations' used by applications. Unlike some foundations, Puppies --and as far as I know, every other specific Linux VERSION of an operating-- can only use one version of glibc at a time. Upgrading glibc can break every application which depended on the older version. Even so, it is possible to perform a glibc upgrade in Puppies, but the steps to do so must be done in a particular order, and not all builtin applications may survive such upgrade.

The primary need for a glibc upgrade is to maintain the security of web-browsers --the major vector for malware-- by keeping them up to date. Puppy Devs have solved the dilemma by reconstructing web-browsers to contain and use their own glibc libraries. Other 'web-centric' applications, such as openssl, apparently do not require specific glibc libraries. Other types of applications --such as Office Suites, and Graphic and Media creators-- can either function under any Puppy or only require updating if you need their latest 'bells & whistles'.

You may know that Slitaz is also a rolling release. mistfire has developed a technique for creating a TazPuppy. As I understand it, what mistfire did was to take advantage of Puppy's (and, I think, Slitaz's) modular nature to use Slitaz's kernel and drivers+firmware on the back-end and Puppy Applications --including its ability to preserve changes in a SaveFile-- on the front end. Tazpup, thus, has both Slitaz's and Puppy's strengths. Moreover, if I recall correctly, Tazpup can utilize applications from both Puppies and Slitaz's repositories. To a large extent I believe the development of Tazpup by mistfire was made possible by her expertise in the package management systems of many distributions and, of course, her in depth knowledge of how Puppies are structured and function.

Predating Tazpup, the developers of Archpups did not employ --and perhaps were unaware of even the possibility offered by-- the technique mistfire developed.

In short, while it is certainly possible to create a modern Archpup or Puppy-like operating system based on Arch Linux, it is not a project likely to be undertaken by someone lacking both expertise and a strong conviction that an Archpup will offer some advantage beyond incorporating ArchLinux's rolling release capability.

User avatar
jplt3
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon 08 Apr 2019, 20:40
Location: Planet Earth

#4 Post by jplt3 »

Thansk mikeslr for your explanation.
It's quiet obvious that puppy is not built to the way that a rooling release distribution work.

CockeRed
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon 07 Oct 2019, 19:38

#5 Post by CockeRed »

Hello!
There is a project PuppyRus-A(PRA), Arch+Puppy, but it is only in Russian. And he is largely Arch Linux, in a smaller Puppy Linux, but with connecting and disconnecting packages and the ability to create a save file.
Sorry, this post is using translate.google.com

User avatar
rockedge
Posts: 1864
Joined: Wed 11 Apr 2012, 13:32
Location: Connecticut, United States
Contact:

#6 Post by rockedge »

NEW MULTI-DISTRO WeeDog Release announcement. Currently builds flavours: void, ubuntu, debian, devuan (Arch Linux flavour under development)
WeeDog is experimental but you might find it interesting

join the discussion here -> http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=116212

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#7 Post by Mike Walsh »

TBH, there's always a number in any 'community', of course.....but I honestly believe that the great majority of Puppians (silent, or otherwise) are not that bothered about constantly having the very newest, bleeding-edge versions of everything.

'Bleeding edge' usually means a greater than normal risk of bugs in the build. I believe most of our community is happy to use fairly modern, stable software, that will do whatever they need without issues......

Given that most Puppians run pretty old machines, which by their very nature often have in-built hardware limitations, a rolling release honestly doesn't make much sense in the Puppy context......despite that it would, I guess, be an interesting experiment for its own sake.

(*shrug*)

Just my two-penn'orth, FWIW.


Mike. :wink:

User avatar
rufwoof
Posts: 3690
Joined: Mon 24 Feb 2014, 17:47

#8 Post by rufwoof »

Older versions of office programs etc. often work just as well as the latest versions. Such that you can stick with a if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it practice. Primarily however its browsers that drive the need for hardware/OS upgrades.

So you could run with a latest regularly updated OS and browser at the main level, but with static Puppy within a virtual environment within that. At the risk of the regularly updated main system potentially seeing intended upgrades actually causing outages (bugs).

More optimally I guess stick with a lean latest static main system for stability, run a static sub-system within that for consistency/stability of regular programs (Puppy), and a separate regularly updated sub-system/OS for the browser - in which case something like Arch or Void might be reasonable choices for that.

Or in Mike's (W) case perhaps one pup per core :)

Makes you wonder what we'll be using devices for when 1024 cores, as good as unlimited ram/storage and 1TB/sec download speeds are commonplace!
Attachments
64c.png
(63.72 KiB) Downloaded 1662 times
[size=75]( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) :wq[/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]

wiak
Posts: 2040
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 05:12
Location: not Bulgaria

#9 Post by wiak »

rockedge wrote:
NEW MULTI-DISTRO WeeDog Release announcement. Currently builds flavours: void, ubuntu, debian, devuan (Arch Linux flavour under development)
WeeDog is experimental but you might find it interesting

join the discussion here -> http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=116212
Yes, I had forgotten to add the Arch Linux flavour for WeeDog. That can certainly be done. I think I'll have a go at that in the coming weeks. Of course WeeDog's Void Linux flavour is itself (since being built up using Void Linux) a rolling release and seems the creator of Void Linux may have been an Arch user at sometime, and inherited some ideas from there maybe, but I'm not sure.

Probably my biggest computer-related problem at the moment is that I have of ton of things I want to try with WeeDog now that the core build scripts are proving pretty stable, so I'm temporarily not focussing enough to do anything. But good to have a wee rest so mind relaxed and more likely to be focused again thereafter. Also the weather is good here now so I'm out and about more than at computer table... Having said that, being generally unfamiliar with Arch, and following the above posts, I am right now about to boot Arch and take a closer look since it already was on the back of my mind that I wanted to complete that 'place-holder' I already had for Arch option in build_firstrib_rootfs script. The build_weedog_initramfs scripts should hopefully work fine to produce an Arch frugal install anyway (indeed someone wanting that could simply download or extract any Arch root filesystem and then use that wih build_weedog_initramfs to create a WeeDog initramfs controlled Arch (though I haven't tried that with Arch yet to be sure there is nothing extra required).

Whether I complete FirstRib/WeeDog Arch shortly depends both on whether I run into problems with it and on whether there is any demand for a WeeDog Arch of course - this thread on the otherhand is a request for a Puppy Arch and WeeDog is not Puppy, but yes, WeeDog provides its own independent frugal install save persistence, rollback, copy2ram mechanisms.

In the same way it wouldn't be accurate to call the Void flavour of WeeDog, "Void Linux", since WeeDog's save/changes/copy2ram and rollback facilities have nothing to do with Void Linux, WeeDog Arch won't be official Arch per se (and all WeeDog facilities work the same no matter the WeeDog distro flavour). However, aside from these flexible WeeDog facilities (and efficient RAM-usage etc), a user won't be able to tell the difference from running Arch from an official Arch install because the internals (native package manager and init scripts and init scripts etc) remain untouched (unless the simple default WeeDog rc.sysinit is used and not replaced by official Arch system config files via pacman use).

Anyway, at least rockedge's comment has reminded me to have a look at it just now.

wiak
Last edited by wiak on Wed 09 Oct 2019, 10:18, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
rufwoof
Posts: 3690
Joined: Mon 24 Feb 2014, 17:47

#10 Post by rufwoof »

wiak wrote:seems the creator of Void Linux may have been an Arch user at sometime, and inherited some ideas from there maybe, but I'm not sure
Jaun who 'founded' the xbps package management element was a NetBSD executive ... so voidlinux also reflect elements from the BSD side as well. My voidlinux LAN device name of wlp2s0 for instance is a very BSD slice'ish type naming convention.
[size=75]( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) :wq[/size]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1028256#1028256][size=75]Fatdog multi-session usb[/url][/size]
[size=75][url=https://hashbang.sh]echo url|sed -e 's/^/(c/' -e 's/$/ hashbang.sh)/'|sh[/url][/size]

mistfire
Posts: 1411
Joined: Wed 05 Nov 2008, 00:35
Location: PH

#11 Post by mistfire »

mikeslr wrote:ArchLInux is a rolling release. Its structure, package manager and repositories are designed around that concept. Puppies are not and Woof, the tool to create Puppies, isn't designed to create a rolling release. I don't recall with certainty, but have a vague recollection that the ArchPups were not able to build in rolling release capability.

Beyond the capability of performing upgrades to a running operating system, I am unaware of any advantage ArchLinux offers that debian, slackware or Ubuntu lack. It is possible to woof a 'bare-bones' Puppy based on any of those. And unlike ArchLinux which expects of its Users a certain amount of familiarity with Linux, Puppies are intended to be 'newie friendly'.

As a result of Puppy's modular nature, kernel upgrades can in fact be accomplished from running Puppy. I suspect the difficulty with doing an entire upgrade involves, at least, glibc libraries. glibc libraries are 'foundations' used by applications. Unlike some foundations, Puppies --and as far as I know, every other specific Linux VERSION of an operating-- can only use one version of glibc at a time. Upgrading glibc can break every application which depended on the older version. Even so, it is possible to perform a glibc upgrade in Puppies, but the steps to do so must be done in a particular order, and not all builtin applications may survive such upgrade.

The primary need for a glibc upgrade is to maintain the security of web-browsers --the major vector for malware-- by keeping them up to date. Puppy Devs have solved the dilemma by reconstructing web-browsers to contain and use their own glibc libraries. Other 'web-centric' applications, such as openssl, apparently do not require specific glibc libraries. Other types of applications --such as Office Suites, and Graphic and Media creators-- can either function under any Puppy or only require updating if you need their latest 'bells & whistles'.

You may know that Slitaz is also a rolling release. mistfire has developed a technique for creating a TazPuppy. As I understand it, what mistfire did was to take advantage of Puppy's (and, I think, Slitaz's) modular nature to use Slitaz's kernel and drivers+firmware on the back-end and Puppy Applications --including its ability to preserve changes in a SaveFile-- on the front end. Tazpup, thus, has both Slitaz's and Puppy's strengths. Moreover, if I recall correctly, Tazpup can utilize applications from both Puppies and Slitaz's repositories. To a large extent I believe the development of Tazpup by mistfire was made possible by her expertise in the package management systems of many distributions and, of course, her in depth knowledge of how Puppies are structured and function.

Predating Tazpup, the developers of Archpups did not employ --and perhaps were unaware of even the possibility offered by-- the technique mistfire developed.

In short, while it is certainly possible to create a modern Archpup or Puppy-like operating system based on Arch Linux, it is not a project likely to be undertaken by someone lacking both expertise and a strong conviction that an Archpup will offer some advantage beyond incorporating ArchLinux's rolling release capability.
Some clarifications:
* TazPuppy was using Puppy's kernel not Slitaz. It was running Slitaz on Top and Puppy was working under the hood. Yes TazPuppy can work also as rolling release too (optional) but it requires a large save file or create a save folder stored on a partition with large free space.

Building archpup was possible using TazPuppy approach (molding a prebuilt filesystem image from live cd). However arch was using systemd. It needs a workaround to run rc.sysinit script on systemd then call arch init scripts afterwards.

mistfire
Posts: 1411
Joined: Wed 05 Nov 2008, 00:35
Location: PH

#12 Post by mistfire »

However predefined filesystem manipulation has caveats

1. Only its own package manager is used. It requires some modifications on package manager to accept pet packages

2. Startup and shutdown sequences requires modifications for implementing pupmodes

User avatar
puppyluvr
Posts: 3470
Joined: Sun 06 Jan 2008, 23:14
Location: Chickasha Oklahoma
Contact:

#13 Post by puppyluvr »

:D Hello!
if I remember rught, when I tried several years ago, I could get a bootable Puppy from Arch binaries. But its package manager was unusable, and it wouldnt accept installing anything... And it wouldnt install Arch packages, due to a key system, connected to the rolling release method...

Worse, many major distros are going systemd.... :cry:
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!

Puppy since 2.15CE...

User avatar
tallboy
Posts: 1760
Joined: Tue 21 Sep 2010, 21:56
Location: Drøbak, Norway

#14 Post by tallboy »

Hi CockeRed, welcome to the forum! :D
True freedom is a live Puppy on a multisession CD/DVD.

s243a
Posts: 2580
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 04:48
Contact:

#15 Post by s243a »

I think that the problem that puppy has with rolling releases is not a good mechanism for updating installed packages. I think that Scotmann is working on this with Pkg. For instance see:

"Updating builtin or system packages"
https://gitlab.com/sc0ttj/Pkg/issues/86
Find me on [url=https://www.minds.com/ns_tidder]minds[/url] and on [url=https://www.pearltrees.com/s243a/puppy-linux/id12399810]pearltrees[/url].

User avatar
johnywhy
Posts: 879
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2011, 14:52

#16 Post by johnywhy »

Mike Walsh wrote:Given that most Puppians run pretty old machines, which by their very nature often have in-built hardware limitations, a rolling release honestly doesn't make much sense in the Puppy context
Arch is my linux of choice, particularly for older machines. It's one of the smallest "real" linuxes: ISO 650MB, that gives a full modern desktop experience.

Rolling release doesn't mean "bleeding edge" or "experimental", it means you get the latest bug-fixes as soon as they're available. True, an update might break something since they aren't lab-tested same as LTS distros. But they get battle-tested and fixed pretty quick. Generally, i find arch quite stable.

Can someone who uses puppy linux honesty say they're scared of experimenting? Puppy itself is experimental! :)

Personally, i'd be more interested in a slimmed down, non-systemd real arch, than an arch puppy.

See here:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... ?p=1058780
Last edited by johnywhy on Sun 24 May 2020, 17:07, edited 1 time in total.
[b]Now[/b]: X-Tahr 2.0! StretchDog! DevuanDog!
[b]Tops[/b]: TarhNOP Vlina-R2 Racy
[b]Used[/b]: Puppeee Precise Lucid Wary Tahrpup Quirky Slacko MacPup Saluki Puppy Studio LxPupTarh Lina-Lite Lina
[i]i ♥ Puppy[/i]

wiak
Posts: 2040
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 05:12
Location: not Bulgaria

#17 Post by wiak »

johnywhy wrote:Arch is my linux of choice, particularly for older machines. It's one of the smallest "real" linuxes: ISO 650MB.
I hadn't looked at Archlabs iso before (nor ever downloaded an official Arch iso, or even used pacman till very recently), but to be fair that Archlabs 650MB iso doesn't contain much, so can't really directly compare it with Puppy I'd say. I was expecting a full Xorg with mesa and window manager etc affair. I would certainly now say that Arch provides a wonderful powerful/efficient/modern and very up-to-date system though (systemd and all...).

Anyway, just for fun I cut out a few of the larger packages from my current relatively full-featured WeeDogLinux Arch64, which is normally pretty big at around 2.4GB installed. It's a frugal install (with similar facilities to Puppy and the DebianDogs - copy2ram or changes can be stored in RAM and persistence of course, and so on), so that is the size of the full WeeDogLinux Arch64 main sfs file, which has openbox, tint2, pcmanfm-pinboard/desktop, full dev environment, and tons of fullsize office/graphics apps and more...

So, without any major pruning effort (which could easily cut this down by 30% or more, I built a quicko version - literally only took ten minutes - of the above whose install size is 870MB, but that is with full Xorg and mesa and some other bits and pieces, and connects out-of-the-box to my wifi network. Alas, I cut a tiny package or so by accident which results in some icons missing (unlike the actual WeeDogLinux Arch64 release) - screenshot nevertheless below. Could I cut that down to DebianDog or Puppy size (these being similar download to each other in size)? Yes, definitely - even that quick trimmed WeeDog still contains complete docs/man pages/language files and so on, like alone a lot more modules than comes with Puppy or the Dogs, and far more Xorg-oriented packages than actually required to basically operate.

However, the only point for me in making major slim version would be for copy2ram use - generally speaking I like to have major apps available: Full office package, full inkscape and gimp and so on, so copy2ram would only be useful on modern machines with plenty RAM anyway (actually most modern machine of 4GB and over could copy2ram the main 2.4GB release... but fast as from SSD hard drives anyway and tons of space there so why bother with cutting it down in my case - no reason at all in fact.

As for systemd... it is very well implemented by Arch Linux - it is working brilliantly and efficiently on that system. I wouldn't consider changing it therefore - too many more important dev priorities to get on with.

So I'm posting from the almost 900MB WeeDog Arch right now and include screenshot (oh... no big webbrowser on it though - and only gtk+2 so to keep size down would probably compile one cos gtk+3 firefox would add another 90MB maybe).

Aside from WeeDog, I tend to use BionicDog64 (by fredx181) on a daily basis. It's roughly same download size of Puppy, but once I install the apps I like to have (and development system) it also up there around 2GB in size compressed in remastered sfs. But that's fine - it also flies and is very economical - I don't care about a few GB of hard disk space...

wiak
Attachments
RoughTrimmedWeeDogArch_scrot.png
(156.57 KiB) Downloaded 783 times

User avatar
johnywhy
Posts: 879
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2011, 14:52

#18 Post by johnywhy »

wiak wrote:
without any major pruning effort (which could easily cut this down by 30% or more, I built a quicko version
Awesome, wiak! The pure arch install will prolly give you an even leaner base than labs.

I don't care about a few GB of hard disk space
personally, i do care. For me, the appeal of puppy is ability to run on old, low-resource machines.

Archlabs 650MB iso doesn't contain much, so can't really directly compare it with Puppy
Which one? There isn't a single "puppy", there are so many. i guess you mean your (rather large?) distro.

It's roughly same download size of Puppy
Which one? i'm a fan of the small puppies. x-tahr, my all-time fave puppy and only one i still use, ISO clocks in at 222MB.

http://smokey01.com/rg66/X-tahr/iso/

I like to have major apps available: Full office package, full inkscape and gimp and so on
I prefer the arch philosophy, which is to provide a minimal OS, and let the user install the apps of their choice. That way, i'm not stuck with a lot of bloat which i don't need or want. To turn arch into a customized fat puppy is contrary to the whole reason i like puppy and arch.

It seems there are (maybe) two general trends in puppy dev:

- make the core leaner and better
- build fat personalized distros with all your fave apps

The first one is the approach that suits me. I know better than anybody what apps i want/don't want. Eg, i never run a local Office suite. In the cloud era there are many online Office suites to pick from, which are format-compatible with the desktop suites. Why tie up my HD and RAM? Running large desktop suites isn't modern. Besides, for me the linux office suites seem clunky. For local image editing i use PhotoFlare, about 600Kb. I think the most appropriate use of puppy is for emergencies, recovery and formatting tasks, unrestricted access to things that a normal distro may lock you out of, etc. Puppy doesn't really cut it for daily normal work environment. But, hey different philosophies.

https://photoflare.io/downloads/

so copy2ram would only be useful on modern machines with plenty RAM anyway (actually most modern machine of 4GB and over could copy2ram the main 2.4GB release... but fast as from SSD hard drives anyway and tons of space there so why bother with cutting it down
if your older disk-based machine supports SD cards, run puppy off an SD. SD gives performance that's pretty close to an SSD-- much faster than a hard drive or flash drive. i just bought a 250 GB name-brand SD card for about $30.

cheers!
[b]Now[/b]: X-Tahr 2.0! StretchDog! DevuanDog!
[b]Tops[/b]: TarhNOP Vlina-R2 Racy
[b]Used[/b]: Puppeee Precise Lucid Wary Tahrpup Quirky Slacko MacPup Saluki Puppy Studio LxPupTarh Lina-Lite Lina
[i]i ♥ Puppy[/i]

User avatar
rockedge
Posts: 1864
Joined: Wed 11 Apr 2012, 13:32
Location: Connecticut, United States
Contact:

#19 Post by rockedge »

WeeDog64-Arch running Hiawatha, mariaDB, PHP 7.4.6, PEARL, Python 3 and Zoneminder.

I managed to build Zoneminder successfully from source without makepkg. The process is complicated because of makepkg not allowed to run as root so I went with another method and using the systemd files for Zoneminder in the AUR repo package got it all to start.
Attachments
Screenshot from 2020-05-23 14-19-37.jpg
(58.36 KiB) Downloaded 684 times

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#20 Post by Mike Walsh »

johnywhy wrote:Puppy doesn't really cut it for daily normal work environment. But, hey different philosophies.
Now that, I absolutely cannot agree with. I've used Puppy exclusively for 6 years, and have yet to find anything I cannot do with it.

I guess I'm taking the opposite approach to you, because to me, the whole point of running a very small OS on a powertful machine with plenty of resources means I have virtually all those resources for my use.....not for the OS to commandeer. Which Puppy will never do anyway.

But, like ya say, "Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks".....


Mike. :wink:

Post Reply