Lucid Puppy 5.2.8 - Updated ISO Version 005 - APR 05 2012

A home for all kinds of Puppy related projects
Message
Author
User avatar
bigpup
Posts: 13886
Joined: Sun 11 Oct 2009, 18:15
Location: S.C. USA

#2261 Post by bigpup »

Seems to me placement of these entries are important. There is a logical order to what they are telling the boot process.
Basically where to look in this order:
PMEDIA (What device).
PDEV1 (What partition).
PSUBDIR (What directory or sub-directory).

I think all three have to be used, in a boot entry, to get the desired results.

This post is a little old, but it basically holds true to how it works.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=35003

ICPUG,
You may want to look over this very well written info post.
Thanks for this, Helped me understand in my early days with Puppy.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected :shock:
YaPI(any iso installer)

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

#2262 Post by otropogo »

bigpup wrote:...
This post is a little old, but it basically holds true to how it works.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=35003
Thanks for the link. I believe the processes are a bit more complicated then shown, but the post makes a good basis for further testing.

BTW - I've discovered an error in my methodology for determining which sfs was actually loaded (which provided three different desktops, one of which was not what it seemed - lupupluslibre).

It would help if I knew of a quick, simple, and certain way of determining which sfs is loaded (the two I'm using exclusively ant 582_005(standard -129MB) and lupupluslibre (353MB). All I can say for certain now is that when only one partition is automounted (red dot on icon), it means that both 2fs and sfs files were loaded from that partition, and when two are autoloaded, the one that isn't shown as /mnt/home is the one from which the sfs file was loaded.

I have come across at least two more anomalies in my testing - one is that pmedia=atahd , without further arguments, can sometimes result in a boot from sdb1 instead of sda1, even when both have intrd.gz and the sfs file.

I'll try to replicate and further define this later (my scribbled notes have proven inadequate).

The other is that when the sfs file is loaded from a different partition than the 2fs file, both are mounted, the latter as mnt/home, and writable, the former as dev_ro2 and write protected. This makes no sense to me at all, since /mnt/home is always writable when the sfs file is loaded from the same partition.

I have also discovered that pmedia=usbflash psubdir=pupsave results in a failure to find lupu_528.sfs, lockup of the system, even though pusave exists on the flash medium and both sfs and 2fs files are in it.

When pmedia=atahd psubdir=pupsave, OTOH, all pupsave directories on all partitions are shown with their 2fs files, and 528 is found and loaded successfully.
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

#2263 Post by otropogo »

Since my testbed seems to behave differently from that of the only other tester reporting, I'll try to limit myself to simply reporting my results, and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

All the tests below were conducted with the standard (129MB) and the(353MB) lupupluslibre Lupu_528.sfs.present. In every test, lupu was booted from a USBflash installation to an SD card inserted in an external card reader on a USB2.0 port.

The test PC has two SATA hard drives, with one partition on each drive, sda1 and sdb1. In this instance, the flash card was also partitioned (unlike the card in the previously reported tests) as sdd1. The last change made no apparent difference to response to the boot commands

The USBflash card had lupu standard and a couple of 2fs files in a folder named pupsave. And the final line of the syslinux.cfg file was edited for the test to read

Code: Select all

pmedia=atahd
. The card was not edited throughout the series of tests, and I put it in write protected. But I forgot unreliability of the locking tab, and didn't check its write protect status. So it is possible that automatic processes were able to write to the card.

Sda1 contained one folder with the lupu standard sfs, and another with lupupluslibre version, and sdb1 contained one folder with lupu standard. Each folder had an initrd.gz file and was capable of loading lupu into RAM.

In the course of the testing, commands were entered at the boot command line and/or the names of the save folders modified, to assess the effects.

It was assumed at the outset that the 528 boot loader would look for and use sfs or 2fs files in priority order of drives (ie. sda1before sdb1) and folders within drives in alphabetical order (ie.sda1\ before sda1\a\ before sda1\b\), but the tests cast doubt on all of those assumptions.

Unexpected results are underlined.

Test 1. lupu std. in sda1/pupsav lupu+libre in sds1/pupsavr lupu std. in sdb1/pupsaveC
booted with

Code: Select all

pmedia=atahd
alone

result: 2fs files in sdb1/pupsaveC offered for loading, on loading, sdb1 automounted, lupu standard loaded

Test 2. repeat of Test 1. no change

Test 3. entered

Code: Select all

puppy pdev1=sda1
at boot command line

result: sda1/pupsav offered for loading, lupu standard loaded, sda1 automounted

Test 4. entered

Code: Select all

puppy psubdir=pupsavr
at command line

result: sda1/pupsaver offered for loading, lupu+libre loaded

Test 5. renamed sda1/pupsavr to sda1/pupsave, booted with

Code: Select all

pmedia=atahd
alone

result: sdb1/pupsaveC offered for boot, lupu std loaded from sdb1

Test 6. repeat of Test 5. Same result\

Test 7. entered

Code: Select all

puppy  pdev1=sda1
at boot command line

result: sda1/pupsav offered for loading, lupu std loaded

Test 8. renamed sda1/pupsave > sda1/pusave528L, sda1/pupsav >sda1/528s and booted with

Code: Select all

pmedia=atahd 
only

result: sda1/pupsave528s offered for loading, lupu std loaded

Test 9. reboot with command line entry

Code: Select all

puppy pdev1=pupsave528L
result: sda1/pupsave528L offered for loading, lupu+libre loaded

Test 10. reboot with only

Code: Select all

 pmedia=atahd
result: sda1/pupsave528s offered for loading, lupu std. loaded

NB: this was tried with the two folders renamed variously, always placing the folder with the standard sfs in descending boot order from the lupu+libre one, but the folder with the standard sfs was always selected by the bootloader.

Test 11. renamed the two sda1 folders to sda1/528_1(2) and rebooted with

Code: Select all

pmedia=atahd
alone

result: sdb1/pupsaveC offered for loading, lupu std loaded, sdb1 automounted.

Test 12 rebooted with command line entry

Code: Select all

puppy pdev1=sda1
result: sda1/528_2 offered for loading, lupu std loaded

Test 13. renamed sda1/528_1 > sda1/pupsave, sda1/528_2 . sda/pupsave_2, sdb1/pupsaveC > sdb1/pupsave; copied lupu+libre sfs, 2fs, and initrd.gz to root directory of sda1 and rebooted with

Code: Select all

pmedia=atahd
only

result: sdb1/pupsave offered for loading, lupu std loaded, both sda1 and sdb1automounted, sda1 read-only as /intitrd/mnt/dev_ro2, sdb1 as /mnt/home

Test 14. renamed sdb1/pupsave > sdb1/pupsaveC; deleted initrd.gz and lupu+libre sfs file from sda1\; copied lupu standard sfs and intird.gz from sdd1 to sda1\; booted with only pmedia=atahd

result: sdb1/pupsaveC offered for loading, loaded lupu std from sdb1

Test 15. booted with commandline entry

Code: Select all

puppy pdev1=sda1
result: sda1/pupsave_b offered for loading, loaded lupu std from sda1

Test 16. rebooted with

Code: Select all

pmedia=atahd
alone

result: sda1/pupsave_b offered for loading, loaded lupu std from sda1

Test 17. booted with commandline entry

Code: Select all

puppy psubdir=pupsave
result: both sdd1/pupsave and sda1/pupsave offered for loading, chose 2fs from sda1, loaded lupu+libre from sda1

Test 18. booted with commandline entry puppy

Code: Select all

psubdir=pupsave
again, but chose 2fs file from sdd1, sdd1 automounted as /mnt/home, sda1 automounted as
initrd/mnt/dev_ro_2, both writeable. Not sure which sfs version is loaded, as libre office suite is only shown as a download link in the menu, but when a libreoffice write file is left clicked, it opens in libreoffice writer...

It seems to me that these results differ significantly from the behaviour described in bigpup's link. The 528 loader seems to have a distinct preference for booting the standard sfs, an aversion to sfs in the root directory, and a preference for folders named "pup..." or "save".

There also seems to be some sort of dynamic in which having been forced once to boot in proper drive sequence by

Code: Select all

puppy pdev1=sda1
, it will then do it on reboot without the command.

I trust these notes are detailed enough that anyone with a usb-enabled PC and two hard drives will be able to replicate my tests. My notes got a little messy toward the end, so it is possible that some errors have crept in. I'd be happy to retest any results that cannot be replicated by others on a similarly configured machine.
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

ICPUG
Posts: 1308
Joined: Mon 25 Jul 2005, 00:09
Location: UK

#2264 Post by ICPUG »

Thanks for the info Otropogo and the kind comments on my previous post bigpup.

I must emphasise that the post I wrote before was written after I had flowcharted the init in series 3 pups. Hopefully, all the comments about search not being faster are negated by the init in use today. I think that was one of the reasons Barry undertook to rewrite the search routines.

I can confirm Otropogo's comment that things may well be more complicated now - the init script certainly is - 8 A4 pages of script for finding files and 12 more for loading them!

One significant difference betwen my system and Otropogo's is that I don't use usb installs. Maybe there is something in the current init scripts that is not quite right when usb is used.

I have not read Otropogo's detailed notes fully, yet, but I will make a couple of comments:
It would help if I knew of a quick, simple, and certain way of determining which sfs is loaded (the two I'm using exclusively ant 582_005(standard -129MB) and lupupluslibre (353MB).
When I was testing I simply fired up the Word Processor from the desktop icon. If I got Abiword it was standard Lupu. If I got LibreOffice Write it was Lupupluslibre. Also you can have a look at the file:
/etc/rc.d/PUPSTATE
The other is that when the sfs file is loaded from a different partition than the 2fs file, both are mounted, the latter as mnt/home, and writable, the former as dev_ro2 and write protected. This makes no sense to me at all, since /mnt/home is always writable when the sfs file is loaded from the same partition.
The only thing that has to be written to is the save file. It makes sense to me that the partition with the save file has to writeable. If the sfs is on a different partition then it seems reasonable from a security viewpoint that this is not writeable.

As you can see from my comment above I have printed the init from Standard Lupu and made a start at deciphering it (with the side effect of finding some debugging boot codes I never knew/forgot about!). if I ever decipher the search scripts we can go through Otropogo's test notes to confirm them. I need to complete the decyphering in order to update that previous post of mine ...

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

#2265 Post by otropogo »

ICPUG wrote:..

One significant difference betwen my system and Otropogo's is that I don't use usb installs. Maybe there is something in the current init scripts that is not quite right when usb is used.

...

I have not read Otropogo's detailed notes fully, yet, but I will make a couple of comments:


When I was testing I simply fired up the Word Processor from the desktop icon. If I got Abiword it was standard Lupu. If I got LibreOffice Write it was Lupupluslibre. Also you can have a look at the file:
/etc/rc.d/PUPSTATE
Thanks. My method of simply looking at the start menu for libre office wasn't effective, as when booting with the 2fs file located on the flash card sdd1/pupsave, only the entry "download libreoffice" appeared. But when I opened an rtf file, it used libreoffice writer.

/etc.rc.d/PUPSTATE confirmed that the sfs file in sda1/pupsave was in use.
The other is that when the sfs file is loaded from a different partition than the 2fs file, both are mounted, the latter as mnt/home, and writable, the former as dev_ro2 and write protected. This makes no sense to me at all, since /mnt/home is always writable when the sfs file is loaded from the same partition.
I have since discovered that the automounted /intrd/mnt/dev_ro2 file is not always write protected, perhaps even not usually. Unfortunately, my notes don't shed any light on the peculiarities, if any, of the two instances when it was write protected.


The only thing that has to be written to is the save file. It makes sense to me that the partition with the save file has to writeable. If the sfs is on a different partition then it seems reasonable from a security viewpoint that this is not writeable..
I don't think it's sensible to write protect an entire partition just because the 2fs file is on it. In fact, it seems to me that the system will not let one edit the copy of the sfs file in memory in any case.

OTOH, this issue prompted me to try as an experiment booting using the 2fs file on the USB flash card with the write protect tab set to lock. Puppy loaded and shut down unremarkably, EXCEPT that the usual message line saying that the 2fs file was already saved didn't appear.

I would suggest that some modidication of the shut-down process would be very helpful for those using usbflash to boot - namely, that the writability of the medium should be checked, and if locked, an option should be given to the user to unlock it and save the 2fs before shutting down.

Conversely, it would be a handy option, especially for testing purposes, to be able to set the system to ask before saving the 2fs file (since not all flash media have physical write protection tabs). This is considerably more convenient than waiting for the system to back up a 1GB+ 2fs file (especially via usb2), and makes recovery from an installation disaster or running out of personal storage much easier.

Remember also that when booting from USBflash, the loader relies on the syslinux.cfg file on the flash medium, regardless of the location of the 2fs file used. If the flash card were autolocked by a given configuration, it would require booting via another means to change the boot parameters.

I have just run a few more tests and checked the results with PUPSTATE:

Test 1 with

Code: Select all

pmedia=atahd psubdir=pupsave
result: contents of sda1/pupsave and sdd1/pupsave offered for loading, loaded from sdd1

sdd1 automounted as /mnt/home
sda1 automounted as /initrd/mnt/dev_ro2

both writable, lupu+libre loaded from sda1/pupsave

Test 2. removed

Code: Select all

psubdir=pupsave
from syslinux.cfg and rebooted.

Result: only the content of sdb1/pupsaveC was presented for loading, and 528 standard was loaded into RAM from that directory

Test 3. rebooted and added the argument

Code: Select all

pdev1=sda1
to

Code: Select all

pmedia=atahd
result: only the content of sda1/pupsave_b was offered for loading, and 528 standard was loaded from sda1/pupsave_b

So, why does the loader choose to use sda1/pupsave over sb1/pupsave when the boot command is

Code: Select all

pmedia=atahd psubdir=pupsave
, but

chooses to use sb1/pupsave over both sda1/pupsave and sda1/pupsave_b, when the psubdir argument is left out?
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

sheldonisaac
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2009, 01:36
Location: Philadelphia, PA

gtkdialog 0.8.3

#2266 Post by sheldonisaac »

The newest Pmusic requires gtkdialog 0.8.3

Where is a version of gtkdialog 0.8.3 which works under Lucid puppy? My primary Puppy is Lucid 5.2.8-005

Thanks,
Sheldon

User avatar
don570
Posts: 5528
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2010, 19:58
Location: Ontario

#2267 Post by don570 »

Where is a version of gtkdialog 0.8.3
I put together a package for Barrry' Kauler's Precise distro.
It should work for Lucid.

Try it and report back...


http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 831#677831

_______________________________________

sheldonisaac
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2009, 01:36
Location: Philadelphia, PA

gtkdialog 0.8.3 etc

#2268 Post by sheldonisaac »

don570 wrote:
Where is a version of gtkdialog 0.8.3
I put together a package for Barrry' Kauler's Precise distro.
It should work for Lucid.

Try it and report back...

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 831#677831
Thank you very much, don570; it does indeed work.
I copied the gtkdialog4 file:
~> which gtkdialog
/usr/bin/gtkdialog
~>
~> gtkdialog -v
gtkdialog version 0.8.4 r503M (C) 2003-2007 Laszlo Pere, 2011-2012 Thunor
Built with additional support for: Glade.
~>

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#2269 Post by RSH »

Hi.

Here is my output on gtkdialog:

GtkDialog, which is a link to gtkdialog3

Code: Select all

sh-4.1# gtkdialog -v
gtkdialog version 0.7.21 (C) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 by Laszlo Pere
GtkDialog4

Code: Select all

sh-4.1# gtkdialog4 -v
gtkdialog version 0.8.0 (C) 2003-2007 Laszlo Pere, 2011 Thunor
GtkDialog5

Code: Select all

sh-4.1# gtkdialog5 -v
gtkdialog version 0.8.2 release (C) 2003-2007 Laszlo Pere, 2011-2012 Thunor
I have downloaded the above linked .pet and found a binary named gtkdialog4.

So, how did you get this output from a gtkdialog4 binary?

Code: Select all

~> gtkdialog -v
gtkdialog version 0.8.4 r503M (C) 2003-2007 Laszlo Pere, 2011-2012 Thunor
Built with additional support for: Glade.
~>
Is gtkdialog4 the right name for this binary?

Please explain...

Thanks

RSH
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

sheldonisaac
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2009, 01:36
Location: Philadelphia, PA

#2270 Post by sheldonisaac »

(portions snipped)
RSH wrote: I have downloaded the above linked .pet and
found a binary named gtkdialog4.

So, how did you get this output from a gtkdialog4 binary?

Code: Select all

~> gtkdialog -v
gtkdialog version 0.8.4 r503M (C) 2003-2007 Laszlo Pere, 2011-2012 Thunor
Built with additional support for: Glade.
~>
Is gtkdialog4 the right name for this binary?
RSH, please excuse any unclearness.
Clicking the pet resulted in the binary gtkdialog4 being placed into
/usr/sbin
I copied that file into /usr/bin and renamed it to gtkdialog

It was one approach to dealing with the way gtkdialog is used by Pmusic.

Thanks,
Sheldon

User avatar
RSH
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 14:21
Location: Germany

#2271 Post by RSH »

I think you did not really understand my question the right way.

As you can see in my gtkdialog output, the gtkdialog4 binary version is 0.8.0

You posted a gtkdialog version 0.8.4 - also from a gtkdialog4 binary.

I want to know:

- is this file wrong renamed to gtkdialog4 after compiling?
- or is every new gtkdialog binary 0.8.0 and above renamed after compiling to gtkdialog4 - from now on

Thanks

RSH

Edit:

Or will this confusing all users/developers of Puppy Linux in the future and therefor adding a big minus to the related big list of minuses on installing and using applications? :wink:
[b][url=http://lazy-puppy.weebly.com]LazY Puppy[/url][/b]
[b][url=http://rshs-dna.weebly.com]RSH's DNA[/url][/b]
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=91422][b]SARA B.[/b][/url]

User avatar
don570
Posts: 5528
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2010, 19:58
Location: Ontario

#2272 Post by don570 »

Shouldn't you guys stick to the same naming convention that
Barry Kauler uses. He hasn't advanced to gtkdialog5.

I try to stick to his methods as close as possible.

Barry likes to make gtkdialog4 the application and gtkdialog the link.

This is an image of Exprimo which does it differently.

Image

__________________________________________

User avatar
pemasu
Posts: 5474
Joined: Wed 08 Jul 2009, 12:26
Location: Finland

#2273 Post by pemasu »

I follow the logic explained by 01micko at some time when the debate about gtkdialog naming was hot. Due to incompatilities of improved version at that time. I wont go to the details. They can be found from the gtkdialog thread.

But 01micko posted this idea, to use one improved gtkdialog binary only...and the others are symlinks. If there is incompatibility the idea was that those gtkdialog apps should be updated by the developer.

I have gone with this logic since then...as 01micko.

So....there is diversity...Barry Kauler do the naming his way....some others other way. But there has not been much problems with it,

Also....01micko and I use the latest gtkdialog version at the time. Barry updates woof slower.

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

#2274 Post by jpeps »

pemasu wrote:
But 01micko posted this idea, to use one improved gtkdialog binary only...and the others are symlinks. If there is incompatibility the idea was that those gtkdialog apps should be updated by the developer.

I have gone with this logic since then...as 01micko
exactly...I wish everyone was on board with this approach...but......

BTW/ update JWM-653, since it now works with java...thanks to 01micko kicking butt....

I don't know if you got around to reposting a working JRE in the SFS directory. I posted one the other board, but there's probably some new versions on the way.

sheldonisaac
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2009, 01:36
Location: Philadelphia, PA

#2275 Post by sheldonisaac »

(portions snipped)
pemasu wrote:I follow the logic explained by 01micko ..

.. to use one improved gtkdialog binary only...and the others are symlinks.
Thanks to all for your posts on this issue.

I had installed the one that don570 made
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 831#677831

I did the below, and Pmusic (which looks for gtkdialog) starts normally.

Code: Select all

/usr/sbin> ln -s gtkdialog4 gtkdialog
/usr/sbin> which gtkdialog
/usr/sbin/gtkdialog

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 5789
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2010, 09:34
Location: Republic of Novo Zelande

Re: How does puppy's flash boot loader pick the sfs file?

#2276 Post by greengeek »

otropogo wrote:Have just completed a dizzying series of test with a newly configured USBflash boot card, trying to figure out how to control which version of the lupu_528.sfs file is loaded.
I just saw an interesting comment from ETP regarding sfs and savefile discovery here:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... &start=278
Possibly all puppies may benefit from further work/understanding in this area. Time consuming and tricky to cover all contingencies though.

User avatar
otropogo
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:17
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: How does puppy's flash boot loader pick the sfs file?

#2277 Post by otropogo »

greengeek wrote:
otropogo wrote:Have just completed a dizzying series of test with a newly configured USBflash boot card, trying to figure out how to control which version of the lupu_528.sfs file is loaded.
I just saw an interesting comment from ETP regarding sfs and savefile discovery here:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... &start=278
Possibly all puppies may benefit from further work/understanding in this area. Time consuming and tricky to cover all contingencies though.
Thanks for the link. Have responded to ETP's post there.
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo

futwerk
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat 07 May 2011, 22:04

#2278 Post by futwerk »

new backgrounds.
Attachments
lucidja20,1a.jpg
http://www.mediafire.com/?7v1msw26s6chb
(35.35 KiB) Downloaded 850 times
lucidja20,1.jpg
http://www.mediafire.com/?7v1msw26s6chb
(55.63 KiB) Downloaded 847 times

User avatar
darkcity
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sun 23 May 2010, 19:16
Location: near here
Contact:

#2279 Post by darkcity »

regarding installing chrome, are the following two steps still required for the latest packages?
1. First, please uninstall any Iron, Chromium, or Chrome pets.

2. Second, install this libgconf2-4_3.1.6 pet.
libgconf2-4_3.1.6.pet
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Chrome

Atle
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed 19 Nov 2008, 12:38
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

#2280 Post by Atle »

Its been soon a year since last version of this excellent Puppy was released (5.2.8.005)... Now I wonder if there are anyone around with the idea of releasing a newer version like a 006. We are then close to the 007 version, that I feel could have a slight James Bond theme:-)

I think 5.2.8 has a long life as Precise might never overcome the problematic PAE issue, that makes it useless to me, as its no longer one distro for all, but two versions of the same whereas some works on this and other on that machine. Very confusing for most users and also a small step backwards in the sense of users loosing faith in the distro as one downloads the "flagship" and it does not even boot if this and that hardware is not present.

I seem to remember that Lucid newer missed out on one single boot for as long as I can remember.

Anyhow... Anyone with ideas about a new version of Lucid?

Best

Atle

Post Reply