SFS4 for Puppy Linux 4.30 - OpenOffice 3.1.1 and Anjuta IDE

[raffy]

Barry has built and posted SFS4 packages/add-ons for Puppy Linux 4.30:

News item

Blog item

Feedback and comments welcome.

[mikeb]

OpenOffice 3.1.1 sfs 176 MB

hardly a great space saving for all the hassle.
I assume users of puppy 4.21 and earlier will get dumped just like puppy 2 users were?

mike

edit...oops forgot to mention puppy 3....

[BarryK]

OpenOffice 3.1.1 sfs 176 MB

hardly a great space saving for all the hassle.
I assume users of puppy 4.21 and earlier will get dumped just like puppy 2 users were?

mike

edit...oops forgot to mention puppy 3....

My goodness, what a sour post!

Just because I posted some SFS files, and they happen to be for Squashfs 4.0, and one of them specifically for 430.

Anyone is welcome to create SFS files, version 3 or 4. Anyone is welcome to repackage those two that I uploaded for Squashfs v3.

I may do so myself and upload them to ibiblio, just haven't got around to it yet. Uploading those SFS files was just something that I did quickly, as I'm very busy working on Woof and bugfixes for 431.

Regarding the Anjuta SFS, you have to read Wosh's thread. 430 has all the right library versions required for Anjuta, older puppies don't.

"hardly a great space saving for all the hassle."
-- I haven't got a clue what that comment is supposed to mean.

[mikeb]

Well my frustrstion is at the lack of backwards compatability of squashfs4 .... something that previous versions managed and I felt that this inconvenience (eg having to cater for both versions when previously simply using an older version would do) was not outweighed by the space saving.
Yes a sour post indeed...perhaps I should be ranting on the squashfs mailing list rather than here as puppy development is affected by the state of linux and its software rather than the other way around.
No personal attack intended...

regards

mike

[ttuuxxx]

I agree with Barry and mike, Barrys view is pure puppy motto, smaller is better, and mike I feel your pain, newer sfs 4 is a pain for older puppies, I usually include a unsquash4series and unsquash5series bin in 2.14X located in root, where users can simply drop a series 4,5 sfs on top and it will extract in a folder in root. then simply make a new squash or pet file and all is good again
But really the developers of squashfs need to keep some sort of legacy capabilities. I think they need some emails from our disappointed users.
ttuuxxx

[mikeb]

I described puppy as 'fun' yesterday but there is a lot of goalpost moving going on which for me and perhaps others is taking some of the joy out of the proceedings...an I mean that in a general sense.
I guess it's my turn to be volatile rather than constructive....a long standing habit of questioning everything.

I noticed open office has more than doubled in size from version 1...which having tried it (1) I found it functions pretty well..what's filling out the newer versions?

Well from that feeble attempt to be on topic ..

regards

mike

[brin]

Dear Sirs!

after a few months break dealing with puppy I started over a few days ago, and was VERY pleased, that with puppy 4.30 now I have also an UpToDate opera browser as well as the latest OpenOffice (I already got my journalist wife to O.O. @ windows, now there's a chance to get her to linux!!!

O.K., after solving several probs with installing/booting 4.30 I have it running @ 2 different machines, LAN, sound, an Opera 10 working - hurrah!

But now I'd need some help, cause O.O.3.1.1 don't do nothing:

'downed it from: puppylinux.org/news/releases/openoffice-and-cide-sfs-for-puppy-430/ and as written there " place in your /mnt/home directory", I did. pupsave file already written an present.
Booted a several times in between, but not a pups.

Had searched in the forum but it seems, nobody has a prob with it.

could you pleas advise me?

THX in advance

brin

(please be patient, I'm no english native)

[mikeb]

Hmm I'm wondering ...does the name need _430 adding like previous sfs files to match the puppy version? the download is not using that naming convention

mike

[raffy]

The first check should be with the download. There is hash utility in Puppy 4.30, and these are the md5sums of the two sfs4 files:

49b55f484cc6b77215e9d865ea334ebd anjuta-2.4.2-pup430-sfs4.sfs
fc31434295bb6992a335517a2ec9899d openoffice-3.1.1-sfs4.sfs

A different value means a corrupted file.

[Flynn]

I had to reboot Puppy with pfix=clean before the BootManager would allow me to move this SFS over onto the list that are loading when Puppy loads.

Once you've put the SFS file in /mnt/home/ and rebooted, have you checked the BootManager to see if you can move it over and then reboot one last time?

Hope This Helps,
Flynn

[plougher]

Well my frustrstion is at the lack of backwards compatability of squashfs4 .... perhaps I should be ranting on the squashfs mailing list

Feel free to rant on squashfs-devel that's what it's there for. In fact I'm surprised at how few posts I've received regarding Squashfs4.0.

The new Squashfs 4.0 layout and the lack of backwards compatibility is the price paid for mainlining in 2.6.29. The new 4.0 layout dropped the remaining issues that prevented my first submission attempt in 2005 (little and big endian format support and bit-field packed structures). Lack of backwards compatibility was also a requirement for mainlining (for obvious reasons - legacy 1.x/2.x/3.x layout code suffers from the issues that prevented mainlining).

I know the transition from Squashfs 3.x to 4.0 will be difficult for these reasons. Previously I deliberately provided backwards compatibility when releasing new layouts to ease the transition period. This current situation is uniquely due to mainlining and it shouldn't happen again in the future. Mainlining was a necessary step for Squashfs credibility in the Linux kernel community and it is something that was frequently and increasingly requested by Linux distributions.

Phillip

[ttuuxxx]

Well my frustrstion is at the lack of backwards compatability of squashfs4 .... perhaps I should be ranting on the squashfs mailing list

Feel free to rant on squashfs-devel that's what it's there for. In fact I'm surprised at how few posts I've received regarding Squashfs4.0.

The new Squashfs 4.0 layout and the lack of backwards compatibility is the price paid for mainlining in 2.6.29. The new 4.0 layout dropped the remaining issues that prevented my first submission attempt in 2005 (little and big endian format support and bit-field packed structures). Lack of backwards compatibility was also a requirement for mainlining (for obvious reasons - legacy 1.x/2.x/3.x layout code suffers from the issues that prevented mainlining).

I know the transition from Squashfs 3.x to 4.0 will be difficult for these reasons. Previously I deliberately provided backwards compatibility when releasing new layouts to ease the transition period. This current situation is uniquely due to mainlining and it shouldn't happen again in the future. Mainlining was a necessary step for Squashfs credibility in the Linux kernel community and it is something that was frequently and increasingly requested by Linux distributions.

Phillip

There's also one other little issue that I found a bit annoying, If you have a prepatched kernel and a newer sfs release comes out, you can't patch over the top, Barry has nicely posted his kernels already patched with squashfs, and basically all you have to do is type make and it builds, because its preconfigured. But the kernel I wanted to use had squashfs3.0 and I wanted to patch it for the latest 3.1, when I tried, I received an error, that it was already patched, the difference is huge, Puppy early 2 series had squashfs 3.0 but later 2,3,3 series had squashfs 3.1. So every sfs file I have to convert, new users find this a pain.
Would be nice if you could repatch a kernel sources with a updated version.
ttuuxxx

[mikeb]

Mainlining was a necessary step for Squashfs credibility in the Linux kernel community and it is something that was frequently and increasingly requested by Linux distributions.

Thankyou for the explanation Phillip.....It would appear that this was just as awkward for you as it is for the end user...I'm sure dealing with linux kernel politics is definately not 'fun'.

Well since the echos of my rant seems to have reached out further than expected I might as well take the opportunity to say that the level of emotional response is proportional to the importance of the subject matter. This distro simply could not exist without squashfs and perhaps I should be ranting about why was squashfs not included in the kernel earlier

Off to eat my crusty humble pie.....

regards

mike

[brin]

Dear Sirs,
THX 4 ur comments:

Hmm I'm wondering ...does the name need _430 adding like previous sfs files to match the puppy version? the download is not using that naming convention
mike

@mikeb:
Tried to rename it (according to ANY possible convention) to*_430.sfs, then to *-430.sfs and at last to *-pup430-sfs4.sfs (as the other file in the DL directory) as well as *-pup430.sfs - no success.

The first check should be with the download. There is hash utility in Puppy 4.30, and these are the md5sums of the two sfs4 files:
49b55f484cc6b77215e9d865ea334ebd anjuta-2.4.2-pup430-sfs4.sfs
fc31434295bb6992a335517a2ec9899d openoffice-3.1.1-sfs4.sfs
A different value means a corrupted file.

@raffy
THX for this, hash IS O.K.
BUT:
What is that anjuta thingie? Do I need it depening on the installation of O.O?
Or -in short- what is it good for else?

I had to reboot Puppy with pfix=clean before the BootManager would allow me to move this SFS over onto the list that are loading when Puppy loads.
Once you've put the SFS file in /mnt/home/ and rebooted, have you checked the BootManager to see if you can move it over and then reboot one last time?
Hope This Helps, Flynn

@Flynn
Not yet
I put it into /mnt/home directory, booted several times, nothing.
Tried to install it via puppy bootmanager, it cant't see any sfs files (says, "you must something put there, so I can see it ).
But I'll give the pfix option a try - could you please explain, what it really does?

Thank you all for Your replies and plz hang on!

brin

[Flynn]

I had to reboot Puppy with pfix=clean before the BootManager would allow me to move this SFS over onto the list that are loading when Puppy loads.
Once you've put the SFS file in /mnt/home/ and rebooted, have you checked the BootManager to see if you can move it over and then reboot one last time?
Hope This Helps, Flynn

@Flynn
Not yet
I put it into /mnt/home directory, booted several times, nothing.
Tried to install it via puppy bootmanager, it cant't see any sfs files (says, "you must something put there, so I can see it ).
But I'll give the pfix option a try - could you please explain, what it really does?

To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly "pfix=clean" does, except for the system to act as if it were upgrading and resets some of the configuration stuff. When I do it, my bootmanager allowed me to see the dialog window that allows me to add the SFS file at bootup.

I'm still pretty new at this.

Wish I could be of better assistance,
Flynn

[raffy]

@ brin - Just to let you know that your problem (posted here and at the news site) is noted.

The solution is for you to use the Boot Manager from the menu - set it to load the SFS at startup. Oh, don't forget to first copy the sfs file to /mnt/home. And we assume you're already using a save file.

Some tutorial is added to the news page.

[brin]

hi, raffy!

The solution is for you to use the Boot Manager from the menu - set it to load the SFS at startup. Oh, don't forget to first copy the sfs file to /mnt/home. And we assume you're already using a save file.
Some tutorial is added to the news page.

hm...
I tried it from the menu and from the desktop, as shown in the tut: BOTH <bootmanager/puppy boot configuration> don't even recognise an O.O. sfs file my /mnt/home!
So there IS nothing to install.
One step to the solution of my mystic prob could be, that when I was triyng to install the devx_430.sfs yesterday I had at least the error "sfs 4 isnt supported, convert it with a utility in the menu"!!!???
Well, I just did that conversion with the O.O.4sfs and got /mnt/home/openoffice-3.1.1-sfs4-sfs3.sfs
NOW, when I'm trying to open /mnt/home/openoffice-3.1.1-sfs4-sfs3.sfs, I get the error vice versa: this is sfs3, kernel xx onlx supports sfs4! <ROTFL>

BTW: I use a new FULL HD installation, several times booted, but I'm not that sure any more, if any of my 3 pupsaves are used.
There is no choice in the boot process any more...
Is there a boot option, where I can state the pupsave?
Shouldn't they be placed - like the .sfs - in the root of the HD - aka /mnt/home/?
maybe /mnt/home/ is the wrong path for ME?

OR, does a FULL install doesn't use pupsaves at all?
seems to be a basic prob I have -

So please stay patient with this ole' pupstillnewbie!

THX 4 & keepon trying to help...

N.B-

[raffy]

I tried it from the menu and from the desktop, as shown in the tut: BOTH <bootmanager/puppy boot configuration> don't even recognise an O.O. sfs file my /mnt/home!

BTW: I use a new FULL HD installation, several times booted, but I'm not that sure any more, if any of my 3 pupsaves are used.

OR, does a FULL install not use pupsaves at all?
seems to be a basic prob I have -

Yes, the technique works only when saving to pup_save.2fs such as with the use of live CD, USB or frugal install.

[Elbly]

Downloaded OO3.1.1, checked md5sum was correct and successfully set it to load using the bootmanager - no problems at all.

While OO3.1.1 loads and appears to work, it crashes after 3-5 minutes of sitting idle. I've changed various settings, such as the autosave etc. however this has had no effect.

I'm using a frugal install of Puppy on a Samsung N130.

[Henry]

I downloaded OpenOffice sfs that Barry provided for 4.3, checksum OK, but when it opens there is a double error message -

"Error loading BASIC of document
file:///root/.openpffice.org/3/user/basic/dialog.xlc/:
General Error.
General input/output error.
OK"

Seems to work after I "OK" to the error twice. How to get rid of it? It did not occur in OpenOffice for 4.1. 3. This was an upgrade from Nop 4'1'3 to 4.3.1

SOLVED: This was apparently because of a different earlier OpenOffice Oo installation.

What worked was this:

I renamed /root/.openoffice.org to /root/.openoffice.org_obsolete

This gave me a new /root/.openoffice.org which required me to create a new profile, but the error messages are gone.

Thanks, Henry