Page 11 of 12
Posted: Mon 12 Mar 2012, 22:47
by jpeps
sunburnt wrote:Well compared to Puppy`s method of dependency tracking. I think it`s left up to the package builder.
Since when don`t dependency tree files work well? Is there a better way to include all the files needed?
well..that's easy. It doesn't work well when there's some dep name change and your OS won't boot.
Right...the package builder determines what the deps are; so that kindof rules out woof, doesn't it ? Every flavor would have to have it's own unique and maintained database, which sounds boring to me, when I can tap into a universe of packages elsewhere.
Posted: Mon 12 Mar 2012, 22:58
by Aitch
anewuser wrote:PS: I'd love to have this thread as a txt/htm/pdf or all the post in a single page view for offline reading. Great ideas in here.
try this, p2, 24th December version
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy//viewtopic.php?t=74404
Aitch
Posted: Wed 14 Mar 2012, 03:22
by sunburnt
Yep... All part of what`s known as dependency hell, and I don`t see any method that solves it.
But again... Static compilation does make the app. work without problems with what`s included.
There`s still dependencies but fewer of them. I`ve had good luck with large static apps. in Puppy.
Posted: Wed 14 Mar 2012, 05:16
by jpeps
sunburnt wrote:
But again... Static compilation does make the app. work without problems with what`s included.
..only in theory. How do you know what the right dependencies are to include in the static package? We live in a dynamic world, where all the components are continually shifting...unless you want to include all the xlibs, etc., for every package..and even then I'm not sure. What about the kernel, the chain, etc. Also, don't forget to include everything needed for every brand of computer in your static package.
Posted: Thu 15 Mar 2012, 19:04
by sunburnt
jpeps; I kinda covered all of that... Only what`s in the compile can be vouched for. And yes, I commented earlier about the difficulty of finding the correct lib. for a build.
It`s a twisted mess only made worse by poor utilization of the proper build methods. In the case of Puppy it`s almost to the point all apps. need to be built with Puppy.
But I think verified add-on lib. SFS files could help shore up the dependency mess. Then package builders have a more solid base, reducing the size of static builds.
Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2012, 15:37
by Moose On The Loose
sunburnt wrote:Yep... All part of what`s known as dependency hell, and I don`t see any method that solves it.
But again... Static compilation does make the app. work without problems with what`s included.
There`s still dependencies but fewer of them. I`ve had good luck with large static apps. in Puppy.
In most cases, the static compile is the best way to go. You can make a script that flips in and out different versions of libraries. For some programs where the compiled version is all I could get, this works. Basically, when you want to start the program you run a script not the main file. This script flips in the libraries that make the the program work, and then flips them back out when it is done. It means you only get to run one program at a time but sometimes that is the best that can be done.
Many times even when the alleged source code for a program is published, you can't make it compile unless you have exactly the same system as the author.
Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2012, 19:14
by sunburnt
Moose On The Loose; It`s almost as if trying to deal with and fix standard builds is sort of hopeless, it`s never really going to be right anyway.
amigo commented on the hassles of static builds, so I suggested making a set of tools to automate the whole process as much as possible.
Again... A few extra sets of SFS lib. add-ons would potentially make static builds smaller and all builds would have a better base.
Short of this, those libs. might be best built with Puppy in a variant. But making a Puppy variant for each special purpose is nuts.
Posted: Fri 16 Mar 2012, 20:11
by jpeps
sunburnt wrote:But making a Puppy variant for each special purpose is nuts.
Perfect...that will make you eligible to join the tc "team"
Posted: Sat 17 Mar 2012, 22:33
by Moose On The Loose
sunburnt wrote:Moose On The Loose; It`s almost as if trying to deal with and fix standard builds is sort of hopeless, it`s never really going to be right anyway.
Sometimes there just is no better way than to fiddle with libraries until the program works. It would be very nice if absolutely everything I will ever need was available but really that is too much to hope for. I can either reboot into a different Linux distro to get those program or fiddle.
Unfortunately, it isn't something that is really worthy of making into a *.pet. I've got the things I need to work so I'm using them as they are.
Posted: Wed 25 Apr 2012, 17:57
by greengeek
Stumbled upon this old thread/comment from 2005 and found it interesting in the light of this particular topic:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 0&start=23
and:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 0&start=29
.
Posted: Wed 25 Apr 2012, 19:41
by Aitch
Vector linux?...maybe my comment on 18th sparked that...?
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 978#620978
Aitch
Posted: Wed 25 Apr 2012, 20:06
by greengeek
Aitch wrote:Vector linux?...maybe my comment on 18th sparked that...?
Actually I was picking up on this:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 0&start=32
Maybe micko was picking up on this:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 0&start=28
So maybe all that came from your comment?
Hows that for a dev/loop??
Posted: Thu 26 Apr 2012, 09:23
by Aitch
I think I was hinting that Barry used to use Vector Dev Tools,'back in the days'....?
That's a real devloop
Aitch
Posted: Thu 05 Jul 2012, 15:02
by DocSalvage
Am a programmer of 30 years and 30 some languages but new here and new to Puppy so I'll briefly throw in my 1 cent worth...
I've just spent an hour trying to find PupGet and Puppy Basic so I can install unrpm.undeb.pup so I can extract Synergy 1.3.1 .rpm to install it on on Puppy 5.2.2. From this thread, I now see this has probably been folly due to fully understandable incompatibilities. We can't make software better without breaking a few old versions.
However, I wish the current Package Manager included perhaps a link from the main screen to a help page explaining step-by-step what a newbie might do (like finding the source and recompiling) in this situation.
From this thread, it appears that the package manager definitely needs to be more robust. That probably means a rewrite that can't be backward compatible. However, to remain inviting to newcomers, it really needs to guide users to a solution, if there is one, for using software that only exists via what will be 2 obsolete package managers or source. A builtin launcher for Xarchive, make, configure, etc. for those source compiles would be very helpful too.
Puppy Linux is the best *nx I've ever used!
Kudus to Barry and all that keep making it better!
As I continue to convert 6 systems to Puppy, I look forward to many happy [Return]s.
Posted: Thu 05 Jul 2012, 22:40
by noryb009
Thank you, DocSalvage. You pretty much summarized why the PPM should be remade: if a programmer of 30 years can't install a program within a few minutes (let alone an hour), how can we expect regular users to do so?
Puppy claims to be user friendly, yet programmers can't even install things.
From this thread, I now see this has probably been folly due to fully understandable incompatibilities. We can't make software better without breaking a few old versions.
It's not understandable incompatibilities. Pretty much every other linux distro has a better package manager then Puppy, and you can easily install programs on them.
Puppy is a great distro, but it's package management is it's weakness.
Posted: Thu 05 Jul 2012, 23:52
by jpeps
DocSalvage wrote:Am a programmer of 30 years and 30 some languages but new here and new to Puppy so I'll briefly throw in my 1 cent worth...
I've just spent an hour trying to find PupGet and Puppy Basic so I can install unrpm.undeb.pup so I can extract Synergy 1.3.1 .rpm to install it on on Puppy 5.2.2.
unrpm:
Code: Select all
#!/bin/sh
exec rpm2cpio "$@" | cpio -i -d
Posted: Fri 06 Jul 2012, 04:33
by DocSalvage
unrpm:
Code: Select all
#!/bin/sh
exec rpm2cpio "$@" | cpio -i -d
[/quote]
Thanks for the code jpeps!
Posted: Fri 06 Jul 2012, 06:19
by jpeps
DocSalvage wrote:unrpm:
Code: Select all
#!/bin/sh
exec rpm2cpio "$@" | cpio -i -d
Thanks for the code jpeps!
welcome to puppy linux
Posted: Fri 06 Jul 2012, 13:37
by Gnuxo
Thank you for agreeing with me.
I never found the interface in PPM very intuitive.
...And some daily operations in it are tedious.
I'm no programmer but even I can tell that it's missing a few usable features.
One interesting Idea would be to merge PPM and Quickpet/Slickpet into one user friendly interface. I know the PPM is puppy's answer to Synaptic and Quickpet is puppy's software center, treat caterer.
However I'd like to see Quickpet have more applications to view and maybe search Quickpet for applications...
I know it can be done and still keep a small footprint because I trust the ability of the Puppy devs.
Posted: Wed 11 Jul 2012, 00:33
by bark_bark_bark
I think the PPM is fine the way it is.