The journey to Archpup..

For talk and support relating specifically to Puppy derivatives
Message
Author
User avatar
Chili Dog
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue 20 Dec 2011, 11:17

#41 Post by Chili Dog »

Q5sys wrote:Arch isnt a source based Distro. Where did you hear that it was?
I'm posting from a pure Arch installation right now, and while most of the main system packages are binaries, most of my user apps come from AUR - compiled from source. So, in the context of user-installed packages (PPM) it is definitely source-based.
Q5sys wrote:Anyway moving along... As for PPM over Pacman. Yes I consider pacman to be superior to PPM, but I doubt pacman will ever be accepted as mainline puppy... That is an entire separate conversation, so I wont derail the thread by putting it here.
On the first page of this thread, puppyluvr makes it clear that having pacman running on Puppy is one of his highest aims here, so that isn't a separate conversation. It is, in fact, the main issue.
puppyluvr wrote:What makes it an Archpup? Really.. PACMAN...
Why make a crippled version of something that already exists? Should we not rather improve Arch Pup by making it a real Woof-based Puppy - add to it rather than take away?

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

#42 Post by Q5sys »

Chili Dog wrote:
Q5sys wrote:Arch isnt a source based Distro. Where did you hear that it was?
I'm posting from a pure Arch installation right now, and while most of the main system packages are binaries, most of my user apps come from AUR - compiled from source. So, in the context of user-installed packages (PPM) it is definitely source-based.
Ok I'll give you that AUR is source based... but the distro itself isn't, and neither is the official repo.
Chili Dog wrote:
Q5sys wrote:Anyway moving along... As for PPM over Pacman. Yes I consider pacman to be superior to PPM, but I doubt pacman will ever be accepted as mainline puppy... That is an entire separate conversation, so I wont derail the thread by putting it here.
On the first page of this thread, puppyluvr makes it clear that having pacman running on Puppy is one of his highest aims here, so that isn't a separate conversation. It is, in fact, the main issue.
Good point, I'll address this later once the discussion on the most recent bit dies down.
Chili Dog wrote:
puppyluvr wrote:What makes it an Archpup? Really.. PACMAN...
Why make a crippled version of something that already exists? Should we not rather improve Arch Pup by making it a real Woof-based Puppy - add to it rather than take away?
I think as a mechanism pacman is incredible, and I'd love to see it adopted. But I dont think we should just work off Arch packages.

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#43 Post by stifiling »

Q5sys wrote:[*]How is Barry posting about 'arch and woof' improperly put in a thread about 'arch and woof'?
[*]Why should Barry start a newthread about 'arch and woof' when there already was a thread in existance about 'arch and woof'?
[*]How would Barry's post about 'arch and woof' be more appropriate in one of simargls threads that is NOT about 'arch and woof'?[/list]
this thread hasn't been posted in, in about 4 months. the ArchPup threads are new. and your kind of splitting hairs about things that are rather ridiculous....for example:
1. Barry leaving a comment in an Archpup thread might be considered rude.
Barry could come in any thread, and talk about Taco Bell if he wanted to and would be more than welcomed. It would be an honor. To say the King, Barry K, might be viewed as rude for leaving a comment about Arch and Woof, in an Archpup thread....is splitting hairs and trying to find ways to defend the fact that he went out of his way.....to ignore ArchPup.

2. Why would he post in an ArchPup thread about *arch and woof* when ArchPup's not Arch and Woof, and this thread is?
Because this thread is old, and no it's not Arch and woof....but it is Arch and Puppy. But this is also another hair split, to defend the fact that ArchPup was blatantly ignored.

Barry says that he ignored ArchPup, and listed his reasons as to why. I thought they were valid reasonings, until I remembered FatDog64.
Q5sys wrote:Im rooting for you Puppyluvr!
Keep trying. If you make it work you'll go down in history. :)
This is the type of excitement I was expecting to see when simargl first posted ArchPup. It didn't 'quite' happen that way. Will simargl not go down in history, because he didn't make a bunch of hacks to Woof and build it that way? Talk about a Woof-Fork....that would have literally been forking Woof.

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

#44 Post by Q5sys »

stifiling wrote:Barry could come in any thread, and talk about Taco Bell if he wanted to and would be more than welcomed. It would be an honor. To say the King, Barry K, might be viewed as rude for leaving a comment about Arch and Woof, in an Archpup thread....is splitting hairs and trying to find ways to defend the fact that he went out of his way.....to ignore ArchPup.
If you admit that Barry can post in any thread he likes and talk about whatever... then why be upset or disappointed that he choose to post in this thread instead of the one you wanted him to post in?
Personally I think posting about a woof built arch in a non woof built arch thread would have been rude to Simargl, since he's specifically chosen NOT to use woof. Maybe you dont see it that way, but I think there are those like myself that would. I cant claim to what Barry was thinking at the time.
stifiling wrote:
Q5sys wrote:2. Why would he post in an ArchPup thread about *arch and woof* when ArchPup's not Arch and Woof, and this thread is?
Because this thread is old, and no it's not Arch and woof....but it is Arch and Puppy. But this is also another hair split, to defend the fact that ArchPup was blatantly ignored.
Barry says that he ignored ArchPup, and listed his reasons as to why. I thought they were valid reasonings, until I remembered FatDog64.
So just because a thread is old it cant be brought forward when discussing the topic of the thread? Are there more recent 'arch built from woof' threads?
Also choosing to ignore something because it doesn't fit in with your desires doesnt make that action hostile. I ignore all the ubuntu based puppies released on this forum. Doesn't mean I have anything against the developers or the product. They are simply a distro I dont care about. So I'm not even going to bother to read the threads because I'm not interested. If someone takes a ubuntu based puppy and works on it for months and months and gets pacman to work in it... I wont know because I avoid reading those threads. So if there was another thread about porting pacman to puppy... I would post there instead of the ubuntu thread because of the simple fact that I wouldnt be reading the ubuntu threads because they dont interest me.


Regarding the fatdog comment though...
Fatdog is built from woof (albeit modified due to being 64bit)
Fatdog uses the PPM
Fatdog uses JWM/ROX.
So it fits all three requirements Barry listed.

Archpup is not built from woof.
Archpup does not use the PPM.
Archpup does not use JWM/ROX.
So it does not fit all three requirements Barry listed.

So how are Barry's reasonings invalidated by fatdog64?

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#45 Post by stifiling »

Q5sys,

You've got good attorney skills as the points your making are difficult to rebuttal. You know, like how O'Jay really killed Nicole and Ron, but Johnny got him off? You're Johnny right now.

I still feel as though, for some strange reason, ArchPup was avoided like the plague by most the big name senior members, and don't think that just because it wasn't built using woof, was the reason why. I also feel as though quite a few of them were bird's eyeing it like a vulture does a carcass...but for some strange reason, never posting. I can't say for sure because I don't have any super powers to know that for certain but....based on the 'signs' it looks that way.

Anyway, I've been looking for the 64 bit Woof. It's appearing to be buried about just as deep as this thread was. Do you know the link where to download it?

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

#46 Post by Q5sys »

stifiling wrote:I still feel as though, for some strange reason, ArchPup was avoided like the plague by most the big name senior members, and don't think that just because it wasn't built using woof, was the reason why. I also feel as though quite a few of them were bird's eyeing it like a vulture does a carcass...but for some strange reason, never posting. I can't say for sure because I don't have any super powers to know that for certain but....based on the 'signs' it looks that way.
While I have nothing to base this on other than my own opinions... I think Arch in general has been avoided by most in the PuppyLinux community. I'm curious as to why. I have no ideas though, only opinions which are probably completely wrong.
stifiling wrote:Anyway, I've been looking for the 64 bit Woof. It's appearing to be buried about just as deep as this thread was. Do you know the link where to download it?
Barry hasnt released one, since he focuses solely on 32bit builds. He did comment about getting a 64bit machine a while ago, but since 32bit OS's will run on 64bit hardware, there's no real need. Also taking into consideration Barry continues to focus Puppy on older hardware, I think it'll be some time till he feels the need to make woof 64 bit compatible. As for fatdog64 being woof built, Jamesbond and Kirk did the work making woof work for 64bit. And right now they are the only ones who have done so. Lighthouse64 5.x was based on Fatdog5x. I dont know what TazOC used woof to build his upcoming LHP64 6.x or not. And Slackbones shares fatdog's lineage.
To my knowledge there are no other 64bit Puppy releases. The 64bit arch puppy I'm working on has not and probably will remain not woof built. (Ran into a problem updating busybox to the most recent release, and am waiting for the bb devs to get back to me on a question I asked)

User avatar
puppyluvr
Posts: 3470
Joined: Sun 06 Jan 2008, 23:14
Location: Chickasha Oklahoma
Contact:

#47 Post by puppyluvr »

:D Hello,
As the OP...
This thread was and is about building an Archpup from Woof...
Barry made his reasons clear..
And his choice of this thread was appropriate..
So lets get on point, and lets get Woofing...
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!

Puppy since 2.15CE...

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#48 Post by stifiling »

puppyluvr wrote:As the OP...
This thread was and is about building an Archpup from Woof...
OP,

what exactly, does this mean?...
puppyluvr wrote::D Hello,

@EDIT!!!
It has been done by user "simargl"!!!!
Just wondering if you went 'offtopic' in the 'first' post of your own thread.

User avatar
jrb
Posts: 1536
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 19:56
Location: Smithers, BC, Canada

#49 Post by jrb »


simargl

#50 Post by simargl »

.
Last edited by simargl on Sun 01 Sep 2013, 14:41, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#51 Post by James C »

simargl wrote: Arch and Puppy combination did not exist before Archpup, so it make sense for that topic to be avoided...
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php ... 99#p499999
2009-02-16 04:28:58

Arch based Puppy

I used to do dev work for Puppy and still follow their news. BarryK has been adapting Puppy to pull from many different distros repositories, including Arch.
http://puppylinux.com/blog/?viewDetailed=00566
I have added support for Arch Linux to Woof.

I have just done a test build, the desktop comes up, sound works, looks ok.

However, there is something wrong with the size. The live-CD ISO file is 106MB, whereas the Slackware build with basically the same selection of packages is 93MB. So, something quite large has got in there somehow -- a quick perusal of the files and I can't see what -- oh, one thing which is very odd...

The library file libgs.so.0.8.64 is 14MB, this is part of Ghostscript 8.64. Slackware and Ubuntu have version 8.63 and their lib file is only 6MB. The Arch library file is stripped. Why such an enormous difference in size? But, there has to be something else major to cause the large ISO file.

I see also that SVG image thumbnails are not displaying.

So, it needs work, but is basically functional.
Your attitude is bad enough but even worse is the fact that you're facts are wrong.

simargl

#52 Post by simargl »

.
Last edited by simargl on Sun 01 Sep 2013, 14:43, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#53 Post by James C »

simargl wrote:Ok attempts to make it did exist, but it did NOT work. Same thing
What a faulty attempt of an argument btw :lol:
Let me see, you were wrong so that means my response(which refuted your incorrect assertion) was faulty?

shuvvoff_b4iletuavit
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon 06 Dec 2010, 10:09

#54 Post by shuvvoff_b4iletuavit »


simargl

#55 Post by simargl »

.
Last edited by simargl on Sun 01 Sep 2013, 14:43, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#56 Post by James C »

simargl wrote:James C, cut the crap and show me working Puppy based on Arch before Archpup.
If you cant, your two post here are pointless.
Bye
No...... pointless is trying to discuss something with someone who can't accept the facts.You remind me of another forum member, when the facts go against you just start slinging insults.Good tactic. :lol:

simargl

#57 Post by simargl »

.
Last edited by simargl on Sun 01 Sep 2013, 14:43, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

#58 Post by James C »

simargl wrote:Hey James, I have built time machine come and use it - only one small problem is that it's not working.

... Your argument is precisely like this, so I have no intention to continue ...
Your pretty funny....... :lol:

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#59 Post by stifiling »

All the 'points' are being ignored. the best replies came from Q5sys. Like i said to the OP...before jrb posted an anger management website....

DID YOU POST OFF TOPIC IN THE FIRST POST OF YOUR OWN THEAD???

See if you can get that answered and not ignore it with some other useless post, or another old broken Arch Pup Link.

It pretty pointless anyway. Barry could murder a man around these parts...and it would still be defended.

"He sneezed and it accidentally went off."
"That guy walked in the way of the Gun."
"That guy tripped and fell and the bullet accidentally got him."

User avatar
James C
Posts: 6618
Joined: Thu 26 Mar 2009, 05:12
Location: Kentucky

The original Arch Puppy

#60 Post by James C »

Hey simargl......

Code: Select all

# cat /etc/DISTRO_SPECS
#DISTRO_FILE_PREFIX: prefix for Puppy files... exs: upup-500.sfs, upupsave.2fs, upupz500.sfs
#DISTRO_VERSION: this is the version number of Puppy that you are building. must be 3 digits.
#package list and urls are in file DISTRO-PKGS-SPECS-${DISTRO_BINARY_COMPAT}.

DISTRO_VERSION="007"
DISTRO_BINARY_COMPAT="arch" #####change this as required#####

case $DISTRO_BINARY_COMPAT in
 ubuntu)
  DISTRO_NAME="Intrepid Puppy"
  DISTRO_FILE_PREFIX="upup"
  DISTRO_COMPAT_VERSION="intrepid"
 ;;
 debian)
  DISTRO_NAME="Lenny Puppy"
  DISTRO_FILE_PREFIX="dpup"
  DISTRO_COMPAT_VERSION="lenny"
 ;;
 slackware)
  DISTRO_NAME="Slack Puppy"
  DISTRO_FILE_PREFIX="spup"
  DISTRO_COMPAT_VERSION="12.2"
 ;;
 arch)
  DISTRO_NAME="Arch Puppy"
  DISTRO_FILE_PREFIX="apup"
  DISTRO_COMPAT_VERSION="200902"
 ;;
esac
# 
Courtesy of the famed developer shuvvoff_b4iletuavit. :)

Appears to be working....... next weak-assed point.
Attachments
Arch Puppy 0.0.7.jpg
(53.11 KiB) Downloaded 433 times

Post Reply