Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Mon 26 Aug 2019, 01:09
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
Puppy build system alternative?
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 4 [60 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 2052

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 12:25    Post subject: Re: Puppy build system alternative?  

jamesbond wrote:

2. Step-by-step instructions, which can be followed by others, to produce a Puppy-like distro.[/b]

---

Ideally, (1) and (2) should go together but I'm willing to accept (2) without (1) with the provision that it has enough detail so that a capable person would be able to automate it to produce (1).


As a side note there is also "corepup". I don't think it has a build system (and I haven't tried it), but if there is (or alternatively if someome will make) step by step instructions on how to produce it then maybe it will qualify.

That said it doesn't use the "layered file system" which is a pretty dominant characteristic of puppy linux. Maybe wanderer, fredx181 or wiak can speak more about what corepup is all about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
musher0

Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 14284
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 14:50    Post subject:  

Hello all.

IIRC, forum member nosystemdthanks has evolved a figOS
script that builds corepup and other Pups.

If he reads this thread, could he please confirm?

This is FYI only. I have never tried it, so I don't know if it meets
jamesbond's criteria.

BFN.

_________________
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
Je suis né pour aimer et non pas pour haïr. (Sophocle) /
I was born to love and not to hate. (Sophocles)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ally


Joined: 19 May 2012
Posts: 1915
Location: lincoln, uk

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 16:11    Post subject:  

http://archive.org/download/Puppy_Linux_Refractapup

look for mkfigos**

Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
fredx181


Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Posts: 4046
Location: holland

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 16:58    Post subject:  

dancytron wrote:
jamesbond wrote:
Known build systems (listed in order they are submitted in this thread):
4. DebianDog build system. The build system to build DebianDog family of distros (DebianDog Wheezy, DebianDog Jessie, StretchDog, etc). It builds ISO from Debian binary packages.
(question - is there similar build system to build from Ubuntu parent, e.g. to build XenialDog? Or does the same build system work for both, only needing a different config file?)



I am sure Fred will chime in, but I am under the impression that before Jessie (Wheezy and before), Debian Dog was built by hand. For Jessie, it was more a set of instructions on how to use Debian's gui tool. So, Stretch was the first mklive script. After Stretch, Fred built one for Devuan.

If there is a script for the Ubuntu builds, I don't think Fred has released it into the wild.


Not for Xenialdog (or other Ubuntu builds) only for the already mentioned DebianDog build system. and for the Devuan "ascii" branch of Debian "Stretch":
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=996908#996908

Fred

_________________
Dog Linux website
Tinylinux blog by wiak

Last edited by fredx181 on Wed 01 May 2019, 17:09; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1616
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 17:08    Post subject:  

There is also dCoreDog, from a couple of years ago, which uses tinycore linux dcore (debian repos):

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=949292

No build script provided for that; rather it is a step by step HowTo, though of course that could be scripted. Some of the same steps could be adopted/modified for corepup - especially the gtkdialog extras needed to run Pup utils. However, I'm not planning to do further on tinycore quite at the moment.

Come to think of it, Fred produced a quick one-off version of Dog Slitaz he referred to as TazDog (using Porteus boot as far as I recall). Not scripted though - just a manual build methinks.

wiak

_________________
Tiny Linux Blog: http://www.tinylinux.info/
Check Firmware: www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1022797
tinycore/slitaz: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=990130#990130
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1616
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 18:44    Post subject:  

Personally, and I only advocate my preferences as one member of this Murga forum community, if I were wanting to use/adopt repositories from any particular distribution I would prefer to also use/adopt the package manager used by that distribution since it is carefully tailor made and maintained. Repos databases are designed with a particular format which is carefully matched by the related package manager. Puppy used to use its own package repos and format for these and hence a specially created Puppy Package Manager was needed and created. The limitation to that was the difficulty maintaining these repos and one result of using them was not many packages available so bigger repos adopted (but without also changing to the appropriate related package manager... that's a pity I feel; dotpets could always have been easily converted whenever required).

Puppy users have long been able to replace Seamonkey with FIrefox, or Chrome, or whatever - nice if Pups could change flavour in similar way simply by pop-in official package manager of alternative upstream repos - so Core Pup + Alternative Package Manager/repo (e.g. Debian/Ubuntu, Slackware etc) would produce a different main Pup flavour rather than having to continually hack away at PPM to make it also work with alternative repos.

Not saying I'm planning to build any such 'Pup' but who knows.

wiak

_________________
Tiny Linux Blog: http://www.tinylinux.info/
Check Firmware: www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1022797
tinycore/slitaz: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=990130#990130
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jamesbond

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 3357
Location: The Blue Marble

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 20:45    Post subject:  

@s243a: unfortunately "corepup" falls into the category of "instructions spread over 100s of pages" ... and it doesn't produce a distro. So no, that wouldn't fit here. May be I should make clarify that the given build system must have already an ISO or LiveUSB images that can be downloaded and used (doesn't matter if it's still buggy / alpha / etc, as long as it is available for download and testing and use).

@fredx181: thanks for the info!

@ally/@musher0: Thanks, I'm aware that nosystemdthanks is doing that, but I'm not sure of it readiness since he has not announced it himself yet (he has only announced the idea) - unless I miss that thread where he announced figos. So for now I'm going to keep it off the table, but I'm happy to be corrected.

@wiak: Although the instructions are certainly extensive and clear (thumbs up for that!), I will skip dCorepup because it does not produce a "distro" (LiveCD, or LiveUSB images) that can be distributed to others.

As for the PPM vs native package manager of parent distro - my preference leans towards native package manager too. But there are other aspects that is tied to a choice of package manager, too complex to be discussed here.

_________________
Fatdog64, Slacko and Puppeee user. Puppy user since 2.13.
Contributed Fatdog64 packages thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wanderer

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 1111

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 22:19    Post subject:  

hi jamesbond and everyone

here is my (unsolicited) opinion

2 problems have dogged this issue

1. people don't want to use github

2. this kind of project has never been identified as a puppy
and has no identified team behind it
so people just keep thinking its another distro
that was mistakenly placed on the puppy forum

getting around github is easy
just have a repository of components on the forum
and 2 scripts
1. a universal component builder script and
2. a distro assembler script that uses the repository

then a simple list of components can be made
this will define and save each distro
for reference and replication
and then the assembler reads the list and puts it together
if another component is wanted
the universal component builder script makes it
and puts it in the repository

we also need to start a puppy community project
and call it puppy (no matter what the base is)
to make sure it is seen as a "puppy" and not just a "pup"
and assemble a team of volunteers to work on it

i volunteer to join as a tester and general annoyance

i propose the name be
"the non official non woof-ce non github puppy community project"
or the "nonwngpcp" for short
just kidding we need to have a good name
any suggestions ?

i propose we use corepup/tinycore/dcore as the base
because it is already complete and is being actively developed
and cannot be beaten for size simplicity and flexibility
(the core is 6 megs beat that with a stripped down puppy other than pupngo)

it already has (almost) all the things needed
this will save us years of work
and get things going right away

the problem of sfs vs tcz is a non issue
since they are totally convertable

the only thing missing is a universal component builder
fredx portable firefox script is a great example
just a few lines long
and it downloads and builds a magnificent portable application

i can (and am doing it now)
write a 1 page set of instructions
on how to make a unique corepup distro
it only takes a few minutes
and anyone can do it (even me)

as i said corepup has everything we are talking about now
with the exception of a universal package maker
which i am working on now (or begging others to work on)

anyway and either way
i will continue to work on corepup
which as i mentioned
is already the system we are talking about

regards

wanderer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jamesbond

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 3357
Location: The Blue Marble

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 23:12    Post subject:  

wanderer,

You have interesting points, but some of them are out of topic. I will respond to those that I consider relevant, but that doesn't mean the rest of them aren't useful, it's just that there is another place and time for those, just not here.

1. Github - I will skip the details, but I will only say this (to everyone who doesn't like github, not to you personally): if github is hindrance, then by all means, grab Woof-CE tarball, and host it yourself elsewhere. But just as the github proponents can't convince you to use github, don't expect them to use whatever workflow model that you propose.

2. your quote "we also need to start a puppy community project and call it puppy"

That would be ok as long as the stewards agree that the outcome of that project can be called a Puppy (or Puppy CE).

Why the need for such seemingly bureuacratic approval? The reason is simple. If anyone can call his or her project "Puppy Linux" as they like, then the word "Puppy Linux" will lose its meaning - one can literally take any distro, add a few dog wallpapers, and call it as "Puppy Linux". That is certainly not the future we're looking forward to.

In fact, as you remember, in the days of Barry, the community need to get Barry's approval too, to start start "Puppy CE" project.

Another illustration, which I said earlier elsewhere: you can't just start a community project to build a new web browser and simply call it "firefox", without any approval from Mozilla (which in this case are probably __NOT__ going to allow you to do that).

But I guess before you try to get the approval, it's better to rally support behind it. Perhaps you can start a poll or something ... and if you have enough numbers, I don't think the stewards would object. After all, Puppy world is a do-ocracy; if we have a ton of people standing behind an idea, it will happen no matter what the final name is.

3. your quote: "i can (and am doing it now)
write a 1 page set of instructions
on how to make a unique corepup distro "

I appreciate you doing that. But I just want to remind you that "distro" (=short for "distribution") is a tangible thing. The end product must be something that you can package into an LiveCD ISO, or LiveUSB image, that can be uploaded somewhere, and other people can download somewhere; in other words, something that can be "distributed".

If the instructions only explains on how to do certain stuff so that tcore/dcore behaves like a puppy, then by definition it is a "customisation instructions" and not "instructions to build a distro", so it won't be considered as a build system.

Of course it being considered as a build system or not probably doesn't matter to you.

However, I just want to say that not having an ISO probably counts as one of the reason why corepup isn't as popular as you expect. While there are people who are willing to follow your instructions, there are still many others who prefers to download something and have it installed without having to follow 50-odd steps to "make it work". I have seen many people peeked into corepup thread, and asked "where is the ISO" and the answer has always been "there is none, just get tcore ISO instead and follow the steps". That's probably OK for a personal distro on one machine, but if I have four PCs, I certainly don't want to repeat all those steps on each one of the PCs.

Good luck on your corepup effort.

_________________
Fatdog64, Slacko and Puppeee user. Puppy user since 2.13.
Contributed Fatdog64 packages thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wanderer

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 1111

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 23:29    Post subject:  

hi jamesbond

thanks for responding to my drivel

yeah i didnt think of a lot of what you bring up

im not concerned with the success of corepup
its just fun for me

but what in your opinion would constitute a build system
would it start with a single script
and where would it get its components
wouldnt the iso just be a product of the build system

i know im dense
but i am really interested in this
because i think it would help a lot of people
make things and feel more included

anyway just ignore this if it is off topic

no offense meant

wanderer

Last edited by wanderer on Wed 01 May 2019, 23:34; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Lobster
Official Crustacean


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 15464
Location: Paradox Realm

PostPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 23:32    Post subject:  

Came across this on the wiki, might be relevant/updateable Cool
http://wikka.puppylinux.com/remastering

_________________
Raspberry Pi 4 to run Puppi
NEW Slackware Current ScPup 32 and 64bit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1616
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 05:43    Post subject:  

jamesbond wrote:

@wiak: Although the instructions are certainly extensive and clear (thumbs up for that!), I will skip dCorepup because it does not produce a "distro" (LiveCD, or LiveUSB images) that can be distributed to others.


Yes, I described it in the form of a HowTo - the result indeed being customisation of what I declared remained pure dCore aside from the added customisations. But why would that be particularly different from the various DebianDogs?

dCoreDog uses official dCore distribution from tiny core including the necessary LIVE boot components in the form of its initramfs (initrd as they call it...): dcore-xenial.gz.

StretchDog, for example, uses official Debian build underneath (created by official Debian debootstrap script as it happens). Following a chroot into that, everything else is basically also 'customisation'.

The only "buiid" difference of dCoreDog compared to StretchDog (aside from relying on tinycore dcore as the 'base' system) is that I haven't scripted the HowTo, which is actually quite a trivial matter (also dCoreDog needs a lot of polishing to reach the maturity of StretchDog, but that is something that just needs more detail). The result would indeed be a customised version of official tinycore linux dcore-xenial iso. StretchDog is a customised version of pure Live Debian (certainly it can use a special Porteus boot initrd, but could instead use the official Debian live boot initrd's alternatively; indeed saintless preferred using official Debian live initrd in his original JWM-based DebianDogs).

Same could be said for corepup (if step by step instructions given and then scripted) so it does seem to me you really are 'moving the goal posts' to suit some build model you have in your own mind; but really you'd have to exclude StretchDog if you do not consider that dCoreDog does not fit in your first post description (same goes for corepup if step by step instructions were provided by wanderer it seems to me). Even without dCoreDog having a script, it still does, it seems to me, (almost) satisfy your (except needs extra steps to polish up to Puppy expected functionality):

Code:
2. Step-by-step instructions, which can be followed by others, to produce a Puppy-like distro. ... Ideally, (1) and (2) should go together but I'm willing to accept (2) without (1) with the provision that it has enough detail so that a capable person would be able to automate it to produce (1).


If it is only about also making a unique initrd, then only Porteus boot mechanism of the DebianDogs does that in a sense, but as I say you don't need to use Porteus boot with the DebianDogs (tho I do). If you want a truly independent Puppy build then I suggest neither DebianDog type system nor dCoreDog etc satisfies that wish but then we are stuck again at square one saying only woof-CE currently satisfies the criteria of producing a unique Puppy distribution; unless you want FatDog to take over the mantle of the next Pup (since it also seems to be a truly independent system (but then so is Void Linux in terms of not being simply Slackware or Debian derived).

So I guess my question comes down to what defines an acceptable Puppy build system since I don't think your first post is proving clear about that.

Really you can't justify the DebianDogs being acceptable when dCoreDog, or corepup are considered somehow not. As for TazPup, well that's primarily a method of bootstrapping pure Slitaz via Puppy boot scripts (with benefit of some Puppy functionality in terms of save persistence and run-in-RAM capability occuring (but there are mechanisms in versions of Slitaz iso that can also provide similar functionality anyway - loRAM version of Slitaz, for example, comes with aufs kernel and save persistence via that).

I'd thus like your view of acceptable build systems clarified further.

EDIT: But I agree that dCoreDog shouldn't be included for the simple reason that it isn't complete enough (even if scripted as it is) and also because I'm not planning to work on that further so it will likely never become completed enough to be worth including.

wiak

_________________
Tiny Linux Blog: http://www.tinylinux.info/
Check Firmware: www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1022797
tinycore/slitaz: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=990130#990130

Last edited by wiak on Thu 02 May 2019, 07:36; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1616
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 06:03    Post subject:  

I'm not, by the way, personally advocating dCore or tiny core more generally as my preferred approach to any new Puppy build. As far as I feel, these, like the original DebianDogs are not Puppy and are not trying to be Puppy - they are simply trying to include some expected functionality we have grown accustomed to in traditional Puppy Linux. Tiny Core is not Puppy; Debian Live is not Puppy; Slitaz is not Puppy; Void Linux is not Puppy.

However, a mongrel system, could be designed that isn't quite any of these either, and in that sense might be a possible future model for Puppy itself. Personally, I'm interested in Void Linux being molded such that it acts like a Pup - once again, a puppified distro - not that that term means much; there are many live distros nowadays (and wasn't Knoppix and DSL such anyway).

It boils down to: what do we want Puppy to be. If current woof-CE produced Pups is the end of the matter then so be it - but I have doubts about that build system as well as the end reliance on big distro repos (which seems contrary to what Puppy was originally about). Fact is, in practice, IMO, it becomes better/preferable to use a Debian Live system, or. alternatively, I find, Void Linux (though that needs worked on to produce Live version with persistence and so on - but that is not difficult to achieve). So, for me, a modified, customised, altered boot for Void Linux would produce a wonderful Pup; better, it seems to me, to depend on Void repos and the excellent Void package manager, than huge dependencies implicit in using Debian repos (etc) along with far-less-than-perfect PPM (despite the hacks to improve its Deb dependencies etc abilities). I certainly doubt a return to the 'old days' of a truly unique Puppy with its own repos and so on - the manpower/organisation for all of that is too great or such uniqueness would never have been abandoned in the first case. Mind you, Void seems to have managed (to create and maintain significantly sized repos of its own) - but then, why bother to totally reinvent the wheel (hence myself planning to use 'puppified' style of Void as a woof-CE Puppy alternative - but yes, FatDog could be a better Pup, IMO, than woof-CE produced pups, and nothing is more pup-looking from User Interface point of view than FatDog - but how big are the repos? and how do you maintain them??).

wiak

_________________
Tiny Linux Blog: http://www.tinylinux.info/
Check Firmware: www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1022797
tinycore/slitaz: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=990130#990130
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1616
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 06:21    Post subject:  

To cut my comment short, I should add that:

some would prefer unique Puppy (which no longer really exists)

some tinycore base (wanderer)

some Debian Live base

me: Void Linux base (EDIT: though I'm not really fixed on that - it's just a current interest that I see potential in)

etc etc etc

I feel that Puppy should be such a mongrel that it allows for any and all of these (and more) therefore. Hence what nosystemdthanks wrote about basing Puppy design on a specification (rather than absolute implementation details) is a good idea. Whether his fig system should be used is another matter (but maybe - it's the only such attempt I've heard of anyway) - but overall I think the implementation of the spec creator/parser should not be forced as fixed by the specification design either.

Implementation? First we need a definition of what Pup is or more, what Pup is to be. Any implementation that satisfies the definition should be acceptable.

EDIT: So more generally I actually like the idea of a very flexible approach that encourages experimentation and difference. Modular, pick and choose parts: not just browsers and windowing environments, but also repos/pkg manager combinations, and choice of basic system type such as single user/multi-user/containerised and so on - like a Lego set (a term I think wanderer used, which is another way of looking at it). Certainly implementation of some parts requires knowledge/technical-skills in these areas, but developing ourselves as developers is part of the reason Puppy has existed for so long already. But I suppose this is almost off-topic since there is no build system for any such distro as yet.

wiak

_________________
Tiny Linux Blog: http://www.tinylinux.info/
Check Firmware: www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1022797
tinycore/slitaz: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=990130#990130
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wanderer

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 1111

PostPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 09:33    Post subject:  

hi all

just a question

wouldn't a universal package builder (not package manager) be a good place to start

then packages could be made from all the various systems
woof-ce puppy tinycore debian fatdog void etc

and then snapped in and out like leggos to a
(very small and simple) puppy-like core
like pupngo
with another simple script (the loader script)
using a simple list as a template

this might unify all of our efforts into an alternative
(simple fast unique) "real puppy" build system

it should not be that difficult (since its not a package manager)
the steps would be

1. obtain the application
2. unsquash with uextract into a folder
3. resolve the dependencies

leave as an unsquahed portable app
or make into an sfs or tcz

i am working on this for corepup
and i am actually confident
that even i will be able to do it
(eventually with a lot of help)

wanderer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 4 [60 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
Jump to:  

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
[ Time: 0.0892s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0157s) ][ GZIP on ]