Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

L18L

Let's start with Fun Laughing

BarryK · Posted: Thu 15 Nov 2012, 21:43 Post subject:

L18L,
Ha ha, 'dosbox' a game Laughing

Well, yesterday I did a test Precise build, and the 'debdb2pupdb' utility created this package database entry for dosbox:

BarryK · Posted: Thu 15 Nov 2012, 22:06 Post subject:

L18L,
while putting pkgs into categories.dat, or preparing to do so, if you think that there is a bunch of packages that really should have another sub-category, we can easily add that.

For example, maybe many of the top-level categories should have a "utility" sub-category. For example:

L18L · Posted: Fri 16 Nov 2012, 06:24 Post subject:

sunburnt · Joined: 08 Jun 2005 Posts: 5087 Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

While you`re writing specialized scripts to parse the desktop files...

Why not generate an app. library dependency data base with ldd.?

I`ve said that statistics on library usage is a key item for O.S. design.
Puppy`s installed libraries are probably a good list of common ones.

But many apps. need more, so which libs. are only used 1 or 2 times?

Include the commonly used libs. in Puppy or make an add-on SFS file.
The rarely used odd libs. just include with the apps. It`s good design!

# Sorry for stepping on your thread Barry... The thought struck me. Wink

pemasu · Joined: 08 Jul 2009 Posts: 5484 Location: Finland

Is this finding relevant to the packages categories work:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=665179#665179

seaside · Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 919

While there are some perl and python programs to convert a deb file to a tar.gz file, I was surprised to find that just using linux tools was actually faster.

I found that the tar file starts at exactly 60 bytes offset from the header "data.tar.gz". (At least in the 6 deb files I tested). So here's an extractor for *.desktop files.

L18L · Last edited by L18L on Wed 21 Nov 2012, 07:06; edited 2 times in total

All data and scripts are in one directory.

fill_categories.tgz came a little later than the pictures

L18L · Posted: Tue 20 Nov 2012, 17:16 Post subject:

pemasu · Joined: 08 Jul 2009 Posts: 5484 Location: Finland

It has been fixed with latest woof commits.

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=665483#665483

L18L

technosaurus · Joined: 18 May 2008 Posts: 4832 Location: Kingwood, TX

I went through the desktop files looking for any gotchas and to see if it would be feasible to just include the icons but noticed that:
(41) apps use svg icons (not supported by jwm) ... need a wrapper to convert to png and modify desktop file on install
(15) specify no icon

sunburnt · Joined: 08 Jun 2005 Posts: 5087 Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

Oddly I can`t find any standard saying the icons are to have no extension.
But it`s obviously the case as none ( or few ) icons in desktop files do.
I`ve gotten an error once with a desktop file that had an icon extension.
# So it`s a good idea for Puppy to follow the no icon extension standard.

I think it was intended for the user app. to parse for the icon type it wants.
Example for JWM:

amigo · Joined: 02 Apr 2007 Posts: 2641

"standard saying the icons are to have no extension" It's in the specs for desktop files. For icons which are correctly installed under /usr/share/icons, no path nor file extension should be given. This is assuming that your WM knows how to correctly find the icon -respecting any theme you have chosen, etc.

However, if using some non-standard location for the icon, then you should give the full path and filename.