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

#141 Post by jpeps »

jemimah wrote:Sure it does

Code: Select all

cat woof-installed-packages |egrep  ".*\|bc\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|"
How long does this take for you?
try it with "acl", "atk" , etc...

Also doesn't address the issues already mentioned. Thanks

I'll keep looking...
Last edited by jpeps on Tue 21 Feb 2012, 22:20, edited 1 time in total.

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

#142 Post by sunburnt »

Aitch; Exactly... Puppy`s always looking for a better version ( throw-away ).
I`ve used 3 at a time, each one doing something needed ( reboot ). Sad...

jemimah; I agree, Squash files are important to building an advanced O.S.
As I`ve said listing their advantages, there`s lots to like about Squash files.

jpeps; Why do you say this? In what manner is Puppy better? Boot options?
The present system is light years ahead of something like TC.
T.C. is crude to be sure, but some of it`s basic design is superior to Puppy.

I agree with amigo in that loading apps. into ram is a waste of ram space.
The Squash file takes ~1/3 the apps. size, and running it uses more ram.
Same with a swap, uses ram, slows the O.S. down, and works the H.D.
But to do without a swap a PC needs at least 1GB of ram ( arguably more ).

I always thought the config. files in one save and app. installs in another.
Mixing everything together is a mess and prone to save file corruption.
But if there`s a Linux partition, why have a save file? Use save directories.

Yes, most Puppy installs are frugal, and that says a lot. "Method of choice".
Frugal installs are far less prone to corruption and viruses ( but not perfect ).

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

#143 Post by jpeps »

sunburnt wrote:
jpeps; Why do you say this? In what manner is Puppy better? Boot options?
The present system is light years ahead of something like TC.
I haven't been there in a while, but I was referring to it's propensity for boot failures related to installed apps.
jemimah wrote: But you can get a list of aliases from /root/.packages/PKGS_MANAGEMENT.
doesn't help at all

jemimah wrote: I think the builtins are that way because it takes less space. Don't like it? Fix it.
thanks, very helpful. I could do my own distro too, but that's not what this thread is about. How much extra space does using a specific file name take ....geez..

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

#144 Post by jpeps »

This seems to do pretty well, although I'm still not clear whether it's the correct package. I didn't see any alsa-lib specs in woof

Code: Select all

#!/bin/sh

OLD_IFS="${IFS}"
IFS="|"

cd /root/.packages

var2=`cat woof-installed-packages |egrep  ".*\|${1}*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*"`
if [ ! "$var2" ]; then 
  var=`cat woof-installed-packages | grep ${1}`
   for i in $var; do
     var=`echo  "$i" | grep "^${1}" | grep "-" | grep -v "\-dev" | grep -v "\.deb"`
     [ "$var" ] ||  var=`echo "$i" | grep "^lib${1}" | grep "_" | grep -v "\-dev" | grep -v "\.deb"`
      if [ "$var" ]; then  
             spec=`cat woof-installed-packages | grep "$var"`
               name=`echo $spec | cut -d' ' -f1` 
               name=`echo $name | grep $var`
               if [ "$name" ]; then 
                      echo "$spec"
                      break
               fi
               
       fi
   done
 
else
  echo "$var2"
fi

IFS="${OLD_IFS}" 

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

#145 Post by jpeps »

A file with all the builtin and matching woof names with pet.spec files is all of 80K, 24K compressed
Attachments
builtin-specs.png
(18.71 KiB) Downloaded 505 times

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

#146 Post by disciple »

Frugal installs are far less prone to corruption and viruses ( but not perfect ).
What, are people having problems with full installs? Or do you just mean in theory?
I don't see how they would be any less prone... maybe easier to recover from.
Do you know a good gtkdialog program? Please post a link here

Classic Puppy quotes

ROOT FOREVER
GTK2 FOREVER

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

The State of Package Management

#147 Post by 2byte »

jemimah wrote: For woof-installed packages, you can find a copy of the pet.specs in /root/woof-installed-packages. The pet.specs contains the package name, dependencies, and origin. The list of files is in /root/packags/builtin_files/<packagename>.
For reference:

Code: Select all

#new: pkgname|nameonly|version|pkgrelease|category|size|path|fullfilename|dependencies|description| 
#ex: abiword-1.2.4|abiword|1.2.4|5|Document|999K|slackware/ab|abiword-1.2.4-5-i486.tgz|+aiksausus,+gtk2|a nice wordprocessor| 
Just one example --

Perl pet specs from /root/.packages/woof-installed-packages, truncated.

Code: Select all

 
perl_5.10.1|perl|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|BuildingBlock|13156K|pool/main/p/perl|perl_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb|....
perl_5.10.1|perl|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|BuildingBlock|13156K|pool/main/p/perl|perl_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb|....

perl-base_5.10.1|perl-base|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|System|4608K|pool/main/p/perl|perl-base_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb|....
perl-base_5.10.1|perl-base|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|System|4608K|pool/main/p/perl|perl-base_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb|....

perl-modules_5.10.1|perl-modules|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|BuildingBlock|15848K|pool/main/p/perl|perl-modules_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_all.deb|....
perl-modules_5.10.1|perl-modules|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|BuildingBlock|15848K|pool/main/p/perl|perl-modules_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_all.deb|..... 
Insn't that odd, they are listed twice and the duplicates are identical....

From the 'pkgname' field in the above pet specs, duplicates ignored
perl_5.10.1
perl-base_5.10.1
perl-modules_5.10.1

Code: Select all

# ls ~/.packages/builtin_files | grep perl
libperl
perl-digest-sha1
perl-html-parser
perl_tiny
# 
um, 3 .deb pkgs, 4 file lists in builtin_files. None match, nor do any match on the 'nameonly' field.
What files did perl-base_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb provide?
Which ones came from perl_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb, or perl-modules_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_all.deb?

[musing]
I wonder what will happen if I make a pet and upgrade perl to the newer full version, then decide to uninstall it.
I want to take a shot at compiling a new kernel. Barry says you need a full install to do that.
Hmm, what packages are already in my devx.... Which files belong to those ... this app looks interesting, I wonder if it will I break anything if I compile & install it...
[/musing]
.


User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

Re: The State of Package Management

#148 Post by jemimah »

2byte wrote:
jemimah wrote: For woof-installed packages, you can find a copy of the pet.specs in /root/woof-installed-packages. The pet.specs contains the package name, dependencies, and origin. The list of files is in /root/packags/builtin_files/<packagename>.
For reference:

Code: Select all

#new: pkgname|nameonly|version|pkgrelease|category|size|path|fullfilename|dependencies|description| 
#ex: abiword-1.2.4|abiword|1.2.4|5|Document|999K|slackware/ab|abiword-1.2.4-5-i486.tgz|+aiksausus,+gtk2|a nice wordprocessor| 
Just one example --

Perl pet specs from /root/.packages/woof-installed-packages, truncated.

Code: Select all

 
perl_5.10.1|perl|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|BuildingBlock|13156K|pool/main/p/perl|perl_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb|....
perl_5.10.1|perl|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|BuildingBlock|13156K|pool/main/p/perl|perl_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb|....

perl-base_5.10.1|perl-base|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|System|4608K|pool/main/p/perl|perl-base_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb|....
perl-base_5.10.1|perl-base|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|System|4608K|pool/main/p/perl|perl-base_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb|....

perl-modules_5.10.1|perl-modules|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|BuildingBlock|15848K|pool/main/p/perl|perl-modules_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_all.deb|....
perl-modules_5.10.1|perl-modules|5.10.1|8ubuntu2|BuildingBlock|15848K|pool/main/p/perl|perl-modules_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_all.deb|..... 
Insn't that odd, they are listed twice and the duplicates are identical....
Perhaps you should report this type of thing as a bug - you never know, it might get fixed.

2byte
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon 09 Oct 2006, 18:10

#149 Post by 2byte »

Jemimah! Facetious obtuseness? You? :lol:


User avatar
jemimah
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009, 19:56
Location: Tampa, FL
Contact:

#150 Post by jemimah »

Nope, I'm serious. That's bizarre - there's definitely a bug somewhere.

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

#151 Post by jpeps »

The bug may be too much woof-woof

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

#152 Post by sunburnt »

disciple; It`s no theory that a Squash file is impervious to viruses.
Though where there`s a will there`s a way, I`m sure it could be done...
The Save file is loose files so it`s open to all the usual problems.
And Squash files are less likely to be corrupted from all the reasons that it
can happen as it`s read-only, and being one file as opposed to thousands.
Both frugal and full installs can rot, but by it`s nature frugal`s more secure.
Last edited by sunburnt on Thu 23 Feb 2012, 23:26, edited 1 time in total.

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

#153 Post by jpeps »

Here's a detailed explanation by pemasu on the builtins. Another example of all the thought that has gone into the present product.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... &start=660

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

#154 Post by disciple »

disciple; It`s no theory that a Squash file is impervious to viruses.
:?:
The real question is not whether a squash file is impervious to viruses, but rather whether using squash files makes the system more secure.
It doesn't. Because of the magic of unionfs if Puppy somehow managed to catch a virus, regardless of whether you have a full or a frugal install it would affect you the same and be equally likely to happen.
Do you know a good gtkdialog program? Please post a link here

Classic Puppy quotes

ROOT FOREVER
GTK2 FOREVER

User avatar
Karl Godt
Posts: 4199
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2010, 13:52
Location: Kiel,Germany

#155 Post by Karl Godt »

if you are able to create a binary that works as a daemon with a weird name like /usr/bin/fds6rtg , make a pet with a pinstall script , that sed's some lines into a file in /etc/init.d to start it at bootup ...

I really think that Puppy gets too fast updated to make people run Puppy longer than two month .

There is too much MS updated my [anti-]virus psychology warfare , that it hurts to read such thoughts . :P

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

#156 Post by jpeps »

I think this script accurately gets all the builtin pet specs from woof:

Code: Select all

#!/bin/sh

## Searchs woof-installed-packages for pet.specs 
## Useage:   builtin-specs [ package ]


cd /root/.packages

var=`cat DISTRO_PKGS_SPECS | grep "|${1}|"`

list=`echo "$var" | cut -d\| -f3`
[ ! "$list" ] && list=`echo "$var" | cut -d\| -f2`

list=${list//,/ }


echo      "${1}:"
echo      " ________________"

for i in  $list; do

var=`cat woof-installed-packages |egrep  ".*\|${i}*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*"`
[ "$var" == "$var2" ] && var=""
 [ "$var" ] && echo "$var"
var2="$var"
 echo
done

Attachments
builtin-specs.png
(19.19 KiB) Downloaded 523 times
Last edited by jpeps on Fri 24 Feb 2012, 02:36, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The State of Package Management

#157 Post by jpeps »

2byte wrote: Insn't that odd, they are listed twice and the duplicates are identical....

From the 'pkgname' field in the above pet specs, duplicates ignored
perl_5.10.1
perl-base_5.10.1
perl-modules_5.10.1
I'm wondering if this isn't an artifact of the search, since I couldn't replicate (I'm testing in exprimo). The pet-specs themselves contain long file names that get repeated within the same spec...so it can be deceptive; especially the perl files. (I accounted for that in my posted script)

crankypuss
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012, 20:55

#158 Post by crankypuss »

Lobster wrote:We could use .debs which are compressed if the PARM project becomes a Upup (similar to Lucid) or Dpup compile . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_%28file_format%29

Are there advantages to having our own Puppy debs (optimised and junk removal offered)? Maybe so . . .

I believe Android, Apple and Ubuntu have got package manage right
scroll through packages. Install or uninstall.
Okay, I am new here, but if you think Ubuntu has got package management right you are way mistaken imo.

Ubuntu 11.10 starts out by installing everything on the planet or close to it, we are talking *lots* of files that are just sitting there. And something, I've been told it's "metapackages", is causing additional ruckus.

For example there was a recent security update to "Vorbis". It's audio compression stuff which I don't use, so I figured just to remove it. That seems to be the only way to clean up a Ubuntu install, remove things you don't need as they are updated. Anyway to remove this Vorbis thing, it would also be necessary to remove half the system's guts, things like gnome-commander and various indicators that have nothing at all to do with audio compression.

I'd say that if you want to have great package management on Puppy then what you are going to have to do is take a fresh look at the whole concept. Build a very smart package manager with some new package format that actually works, which will also handle deb and rpm packages so far as they can be handled.

I also think that Puppy might be leaning too far in the direction of compression. The first step to having a small clean system is not compression, the first step is eliminating things that are unnecessary, *then* looking at compression.

But I am seeing things from my own viewpoint. A little over two months ago I was stuck on Windows. I started into Linux with Ubuntu and for all its flaws it does work. I'm looking for a better base though, something I can take in what might be another direction, something modular that starts small with just basic functions that can then be added to.

Before you go off imitating Ubuntu make sure you're going to like what you have when you get done.

linuxbear
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat 18 Apr 2009, 20:39
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

#159 Post by linuxbear »

crankypuss wrote:
For example there was a recent security update to "Vorbis".
It's too bad that more audio players do not read .ogg (vorbis)
audio files because it is vastly superior to the antiquated mp3
format

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#160 Post by Q5sys »

sunburnt wrote:I agree with amigo in that loading apps. into ram is a waste of ram space.
The Squash file takes ~1/3 the apps. size, and running it uses more ram.
Same with a swap, uses ram, slows the O.S. down, and works the H.D.
But to do without a swap a PC needs at least 1GB of ram ( arguably more ).

I always thought the config. files in one save and app. installs in another.
Mixing everything together is a mess and prone to save file corruption.
But if there`s a Linux partition, why have a save file? Use save directories.
Nothing will ever remove the need for backups. The thing I like about save files is to backup my entire configured system I just have to make a copy of 1 file. If my current setup gets nuked... copy a backup and I'm back to work. Done in 1 simple step. I make a weekly backup of my savefiles and purge them after 3 months. So I have no worry if the save file gets corrupted. Mixing everything together can be a mess if you're a looney and dont properly back up things. But thats less a problem with the system design and more problem of user lunacy. Mixing everything together in a save file (as frugal does) can be a MASSIVE blessing if you do keep proper backups. Besides putting everything in one save file makes dealing with multiple installs more manageable.

As for the ram thing. Realize that running in Ram is one of those Puppy features that attracts people. It's the main reason I came to puppy in the first place. And the reason I stick with it. I want to run my entire OS from ram. Running from a disk is so 20th century. ;) The fact that puppy runs from RAM with such ease and uses savefiles is the reason I have not fully switched over to using Arch or Slackware exclusively.
Yes I understand that RAM is limited on some people systems. But herein lies the beauty of puppy. Its flexibility allows those with large amounts of RAM to run everything from there and have a blisteringly fast system. While those that do not, can go on their merry way the 'old fashioned tried and true way'.

crankypuss wrote:Okay, I am new here, but if you think Ubuntu has got package management right you are way mistaken imo.
+1
crankypuss wrote:Ubuntu 11.10 starts out by installing everything on the planet or close to it, we are talking *lots* of files that are just sitting there. And something, I've been told it's "metapackages", is causing additional ruckus.

For example there was a recent security update to "Vorbis". It's audio compression stuff which I don't use, so I figured just to remove it. That seems to be the only way to clean up a Ubuntu install, remove things you don't need as they are updated. Anyway to remove this Vorbis thing, it would also be necessary to remove half the system's guts, things like gnome-commander and various indicators that have nothing at all to do with audio compression.
Thats the problem with Ubuntu, it focuses so much on 'user simplicity' that the system suffers as a result. For a common user thats not too much of a problem, but for people that want things a certain way... its a headache.
crankypuss wrote:I also think that Puppy might be leaning too far in the direction of compression. The first step to having a small clean system is not compression, the first step is eliminating things that are unnecessary, *then* looking at compression.
Amen Brother. :P
crankypuss wrote:Before you go off imitating Ubuntu make sure you're going to like what you have when you get done.
I dont hate Ubuntu, but there are so many Ubuntu fanboys out there in the linux community, so many seem to think that the 'Ubuntu way' is the best way.
crankypuss wrote:But I am seeing things from my own viewpoint. A little over two months ago I was stuck on Windows. I started into Linux with Ubuntu and for all its flaws it does work. I'm looking for a better base though, something I can take in what might be another direction, something modular that starts small with just basic functions that can then be added to.
You might like the way Arch does package management. Granted its command line work intimidates some people, but its a very controllable system. You install what you want when you want. If there are optional dependencies that are not needed but you may want, it'll even let you know what they are. Then you make the decision on if you want to install them. It wont install them by default. It will install what you told it to install, and when its done, it'll then let you know there are other options if you care. It doesnt give you the option before so that you dont bloat your system by hammering the 'y' answer during an install.

If I understand what you're looking for out of Linux, Puppy may work out great for you. With its SFS system you can load optional packages when you need them, and have a solid slim core system thats flexible enough to go wherever you need it, as long as you have the willingness to tinker to get it the way you want it.

Post Reply