Page 3 of 5
making a PET for FAT Slcako
Posted: Thu 24 May 2012, 21:07
by gcmartin
THIS IS NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE! BUT, i'm going to go out on a limb to assist by asking few questions
Puppyt wrote: ... I just downloaded the latest Beta (3) for Linux of Docear
http://www.docear.org/ - from their website: ...
- You mentioned that you did an "untar" and this worked perfectly. I believe there is a tar2pet feature with PUPs that would allow your tar file to become a PET without the need to compile.. Did you try this?
- Also, you mentioned compiling. So after your compiling and linking the compiled program into the system. Did you test it to see if it worked OK prior to making the PET?
- And, as I remember, there is a src2pet package which will take your compile into a PET for you. Was this tried? As well, are you aware that by posting your efforts on that site, those that do this all the time will find your problem and ensure guidance for compiling source into a Puppy PET.
Just trying to understand. Here to help
Posted: Fri 25 May 2012, 02:55
by Puppyt
Cheers gcmartin,
those tips are great - yes I'll give them a try soon (work beckons), 666philb has already given me some additional tips on SFS production on the 'Request' section of the forums.
While I want to get a working puppy pet/sfs of Docear available come hell or high water, my additional goal is to post a 'how to' with screenies and other notations made to reach that goal. A comparison of different strategies used -such as you have raised - to achieve a working pet (etc) and success/fail I think would be helpful to demystify/troubleshoot pets made by 'L'-plate end-users like my myself. With my currently uploaded pet I haven't been able to locate an error log (if any generated) to flag whether the fault lies with re-locating JRE etc.
Sorry 01micko for hijacking the FATSlacko thread for this - as I said the Docear "raw" tar.gz works out of the box in this derivative. Big
Posted: Sat 26 May 2012, 23:14
by gcmartin
LibreOffice (LO)
When LO is opened to full-screen, the X desktop crashes at ALL resolutions on this laptop. I have the same problem when using the Intel driver or when switching to Vesa. The system test were done at Pristine, boot.
I have attached the My FATDOG laptop system report for review.
Is this an X problem or an LO problem?
Here to help
FATSlacko
Posted: Mon 28 May 2012, 14:58
by Billtoo
I made a pet of QupZilla, a QT web browser, this works in Fatslacko
which has all of the dependencies included.
Re: FATSlacko
Posted: Mon 28 May 2012, 22:45
by infromthepound
Billtoo wrote:I made a pet of QupZilla, a QT web browser, this works in Fatslacko
which has all of the dependencies included.
That picture is obvously a happy Windoze user
JB
Posted: Tue 29 May 2012, 10:35
by Eyes-Only
LOL JB!!! That's a good one!
Billtoo? One thing I've always noticed using Qupzilla on all my Puppy installs, be they frugal or hard drive: Unless I had an accompanying KDE-4.7.3 desktop equally installed ( you can find it under "Additional Software" by Battleshooter ) the browser failed to render .gif files, especially those found here on the forum - they would all be replaced by little "?" marks in blue boxes. Most annoying to be sure!
It would do this even if I had a full install ( "full" as in "entirely complete" ) of the Qt-4 libraries under "/usr/libs/qt4". I found this to be quite strange. So apparently it was lacking
something from the "/usr/libs/kde4" section despite my doing an "ldd qupzilla" check in CLI for dependencies and having it tell me that all dependencies were met.
Like I said, however, once I added the KDE-4.7.3 desktop qupzilla worked perfectly fine. In fact, I frequently use it here when not using Dillo-3.0.2.
Just thought I'd throw this in to compare notes with you to see what you've discovered.
Cheers/Amicalement,
Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acadie"
Posted: Tue 29 May 2012, 12:29
by Billtoo
Eyes-Only wrote:LOL JB!!! That's a good one!
Billtoo? One thing I've always noticed using Qupzilla on all my Puppy installs, be they frugal or hard drive: Unless I had an accompanying KDE-4.7.3 desktop equally installed ( you can find it under "Additional Software" by Battleshooter ) the browser failed to render .gif files, especially those found here on the forum - they would all be replaced by little "?" marks in blue boxes. Most annoying to be sure!
It would do this even if I had a full install ( "full" as in "entirely complete" ) of the Qt-4 libraries under "/usr/libs/qt4". I found this to be quite strange. So apparently it was lacking
something from the "/usr/libs/kde4" section despite my doing an "ldd qupzilla" check in CLI for dependencies and having it tell me that all dependencies were met.
Like I said, however, once I added the KDE-4.7.3 desktop qupzilla worked perfectly fine. In fact, I frequently use it here when not using Dillo-3.0.2.
Just thought I'd throw this in to compare notes with you to see what you've discovered.
Cheers/Amicalement,
Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acadie"
Hi, I haven't seen that yet, I compiled QupZilla in Fatslacko and it shows qt470 because I installed kdegames and qt470 gets installed too along with the kde stuff, I'm a bit of a kshisen addict
I've been spending most of my time in fatdog64 600a2 and I have the full qt482 installed in that, I haven't noticed any blue boxes while using QupZilla in fatdog.
Bill
EDIT: I booted my Fatslacko puppy pfix=ram, downloaded and installed the QupZilla pet, googled gif images.
Maybe compiling with kdegames installed prevented the problem.
Posted: Thu 31 May 2012, 11:26
by Eyes-Only
Thanks for the updated info Billtoo re: Qupzilla. How fascinating that it works for you so well and yet not for me unless as I've described in my above post. -scratches head-
Oh well! As I used to tell people when doing gecko developement, "When working in a static environment it was always easy to predict just how it [ gecko ] would work and behave. However, when once released ino the jungle of everyone's hard drive with hundreds upon hundreds of programmes - and you're only using gecko products - no telling how all those zeros and ones will interact!"
In other words: "Is there really such a thing as an 'exact science' out there? REALLY?" I think not. We often delude ourselves... but now I'm robbing the thread and waxing philosophical. LOL!
Again Billtoo: Thanks for the extensive report as it was very much appreciated!
Cheers/Amicalement,
Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge"
Posted: Sat 16 Jun 2012, 15:18
by capicoso
is this 64bit?
Posted: Sat 16 Jun 2012, 20:06
by gcmartin
capicoso wrote:is this 64bit?
FATSLACKO is a 32bit distro which will work on any current PC that has from 512MB to 64GB of RAM. Not only does it work well on 32bit PCs, but, it will run ALSO on any 64bit Intel/AMD as well. It is fully featured and should do most everything without having to add anything via PPM to be fully functional on desktop or with all devices on your LAN. Enjoy
Here to help
Posted: Mon 18 Jun 2012, 09:26
by Colonel Panic
gcmartin wrote:capicoso wrote:is this 64bit?
FATSLACKO is a 32bit distro which will work on any current PC that has from 512MB to 64GB of RAM. Not only does it work well on 32bit PCs, but, it will run ALSO on any 64bit Intel/AMD as well. It is fully featured and should do most everything without having to add anything via PPM to be fully functional on desktop or with all devices on your LAN. Enjoy
Here to help
I've tried FAT Slacko and it does work in just 512 MB of RAM, but there's a snag in my experience; you can't eject the CD from the drive, e.g. to play a CD or DVD or burn an ISO to a CD etc., with only that much RAM.
It's a good effort anyway, so thanks for putting it together.
CP .
Posted: Mon 18 Jun 2012, 11:16
by cthisbear
Cheat frugal it.
Copy the main >> .sfs file to the hard drive >>> lowercase
Reboot....next time you can then unmount the cd.
Chris.
Posted: Mon 18 Jun 2012, 11:23
by James C
Colonel Panic wrote:gcmartin wrote:capicoso wrote:is this 64bit?
FATSLACKO is a 32bit distro which will work on any current PC that has from 512MB to 64GB of RAM. Not only does it work well on 32bit PCs, but, it will run ALSO on any 64bit Intel/AMD as well. It is fully featured and should do most everything without having to add anything via PPM to be fully functional on desktop or with all devices on your LAN. Enjoy
Here to help
I've tried FAT Slacko and it does work in just 512 MB of RAM, but there's a snag in my experience; you can't eject the CD from the drive, e.g. to play a CD or DVD or burn an ISO to a CD etc., with only that much RAM.
It's a good effort anyway, so thanks for putting it together.
CP .
From the developer.....
01micko wrote:FATSlacko is NOT an official product but a puplet. It is directly based on the upcoming Slacko-5.3.3. It is also the PAE version which will see your large RAM and as such is recommended for higher end machines.
Minimum system requirements <-- Pentium III 1 GHz processor, 768 MB RAM.
Recommended <-- 1.5 GHz processor, 1 GB RAM
Posted: Mon 18 Jun 2012, 15:56
by Colonel Panic
cthisbear wrote:Cheat frugal it.
Copy the main >> .sfs file to the hard drive >>> lowercase
Reboot....next time you can then unmount the cd.
Chris.
Good idea, might try that. Thanks
Cheers,
CP .
Posted: Mon 18 Jun 2012, 16:02
by Colonel Panic
James C wrote:Colonel Panic wrote:gcmartin wrote:FATSLACKO is a 32bit distro which will work on any current PC that has from 512MB to 64GB of RAM. Not only does it work well on 32bit PCs, but, it will run ALSO on any 64bit Intel/AMD as well. It is fully featured and should do most everything without having to add anything via PPM to be fully functional on desktop or with all devices on your LAN. Enjoy
Here to help
I've tried FAT Slacko and it does work in just 512 MB of RAM, but there's a snag in my experience; you can't eject the CD from the drive, e.g. to play a CD or DVD or burn an ISO to a CD etc., with only that much RAM.
It's a good effort anyway, so thanks for putting it together.
CP .
From the developer.....
01micko wrote:FATSlacko is NOT an official product but a puplet. It is directly based on the upcoming Slacko-5.3.3. It is also the PAE version which will see your large RAM and as such is recommended for higher end machines.
Minimum system requirements <-- Pentium III 1 GHz processor, 768 MB RAM.
Recommended <-- 1.5 GHz processor, 1 GB RAM
Thanks for your reply. Fair enough, and I didn't realise that. It's useful for others to know in that case that FAT Slacko will run in 512 MB of RAM.
CP ,
Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2012, 18:19
by nooby
Guys! capicoso recommended this puppy to me in another thread.
I downloaded the iso and set it up like many other puppies
and it failed to boot. Look at my menu.lst
title FATSlacko
rootnoverify (hd0,2)
kernel /FATslacko/vmlinuz psubdir=FATslacko puppy pfix=ram
initrd /FATslacko/initrd.gz
What would I need to change to get it to boot?
I tried it on Acer D250 an Atom CPU and 1GB RAM
and it has Intel Graphic
Now capicoso doesn't seem to realize that the reason
that I am interested in FatDog is due to it being a
multi-user Linux distro.
So maybe he misunderstood why I where active in that thread.
Is FATSlacko really a multi-user distro?
failure to boot
Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2012, 19:35
by SouthPaws
Hey nooby, maybe it's just a typo...
I noticed you're using two different spelling for the distro...
FATSlacko and FATslacko... is one of these wrong?
Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2012, 20:09
by nooby
I tried to be polite to the Devs of FATSlacko
AFAIK they use that spelling for iso? But I cheated
and used consequently??? FATslacko for all else?
I take a look just in case not being consistent. Good catch.
AFAIK I certainly are/is very consistent in menu.lst
and the subdir. So something else goes wrong.
Can be that I am using a single core Atom N250?
Maybe that one is demanding. The error messages in red
are too numerous to write down. Seems to be about
files and drivers and I don't get anything out of them.
Totally new to me what they write there. No other
puppy had had these messages.
Posted: Thu 21 Jun 2012, 06:24
by nooby
Ah maybe Acer D250 is 32 bit while Acer D255 is a 64-bit one?
That would explain it? But the error codes did not mention it.
I switch computer and see what happens
Posted: Thu 21 Jun 2012, 06:54
by 01micko
nooby wrote:Ah maybe Acer D250 is 32 bit while Acer D255 is a 64-bit one?
That would explain it? But the error codes did not mention it.
I switch computer and see what happens
FATSlacko is 32 bit, with PAE to support large RAM. If ordinary 32bit Slacko (PAE version) boots then this will boot as long as you have 512 RAM (Thanks Colonel Panic for tests
).
It shares the same code base as Slacko so that's why I left the main sfs with Slacko in the name. It keeps it entirely compatible with PPM and Slickpet. I may change this at a future date and also change the name as not to confuse with FatDog. The 2 projects are unrelated in a base code sense. There is no multiuser in FATSlacko or Slacko at the current time.
Code: Select all
title Puppy FATSlacko 5.3.3x (sda1/slacko-pro)
find --set-root --ignore-floppies --ignore-cd /slacko-pro/initrd.gz
kernel /slacko-pro/vmlinuz psubdir=slacko-pro pmedia=atahd pfix=fsck
initrd /slacko-pro/initrd.gz
It's only called FAT because it has a ton of extra apps useful for serious productivity.
I was toying with the idea of calling it "Slacko Professional" but it's not as yet. May be one day
HTH