Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Sun 25 Jun 2017, 08:41
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Announcements
woof-CE needs you
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 66 of 66 [985 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 64, 65, 66
Author Message
saintless


Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3799
Location: Bulgaria

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jun 2017, 10:05    Post subject:  

Sailor Enceladus wrote:
saintless wrote:
We are not woof-ce developers and none of them seems interested with my ideas.

CE means "community edition", it's probably closer to this than your definition above: https://communitywiki.org/wiki/DoOcracy

But of course, how did I miss this? Wink
Then I have to answer my own questions because I'm part of this DoOcracy and also seems I'm a woof-ce developer, right?
What is the point to ask questions about woof-ce then? And what is the point to have this thread open for discussion?

Toni

_________________
Farewell, Nooby, you will be missed...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger 
musher0


Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 10316
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jun 2017, 10:29    Post subject:  

Hi saintless.

I think you are one of the few people on this forum with the credentials,
expertise and ability to implement your idea.

Don't wait for a woof-CE "policy". Just do it! Dive in!

Besides, the "Community" in this "CE" acronym can probably be counted on
"one's fingers and toes", to borrow an expression from Linus Torvalds.

It's certainly a community compared to Barry Kauler developing Puppy by
himself, but It's a community of developers rather than "the Puppy
community" at large.

My 2¢. Best of luck. BFN.

_________________
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
« Un insensé sur le trône n'est qu'un singe sur le haut d'un toit. » / "A madman
on the throne is just a monkey on top of a roof." (Bernard de Clervaux)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
saintless


Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3799
Location: Bulgaria

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jun 2017, 10:40    Post subject:  

musher0 wrote:
Don't wait for a woof-CE "policy". Just do it! Dive in!.

Thanks musher0.

I usually do that. Just liked to ask first if including kernel from different distro could cause some problems with special puppy scripts. There should be some important reason for compiling own puppy kernel each time. I guess I will have to find out for myself.
All the best!

Toni

_________________
Farewell, Nooby, you will be missed...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger 
peebee


Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Posts: 2735
Location: Worcestershire, UK

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jun 2017, 11:34    Post subject:  

saintless wrote:
Just liked to ask first if including kernel from different distro could cause some problems with special puppy scripts.

Hi Toni....

Puppy relies on aufs - Puppy built kernels include aufs...if the other kernels you are considering don't include aufs then they won't work in Puppy.

@gyro has recently started some work looking at whether overlayfs could be used instead of aufs but has already identified that overlayfs is not as capable as aufs and therefore a Puppy using overlayfs would "behave differently"....

Cheers
peebee

_________________
LxPup = Puppy + LXDE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
saintless


Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3799
Location: Bulgaria

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jun 2017, 13:02    Post subject:  

Thank you peebee.

Overlayfs is the aufs replacement used in live-boot and I'm not sure it was a good default choice to replace aufs. But if aufs kernel module is the only thing to be aware of - then Puppy should work fine with standard Debian kernel (aufs-dkms package for building module is still available in latest Debian).
I will do some experiments. Thanks again!

Toni

_________________
Farewell, Nooby, you will be missed...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger 
peebee


Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Posts: 2735
Location: Worcestershire, UK

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jun 2017, 13:45    Post subject:  

saintless wrote:
But if aufs kernel module is the only thing to be aware of - then Puppy should work fine with standard Debian kernel (aufs-dkms package for building module is still available in latest Debian).

Hi again

I'm not sure it's that simple (but that may be my lack of understanding) as I think the kernel has to be built with all the patches for aufs - this is what kernel-kit in woof-ce does to build the Puppy kernels.......

BTW - it takes about 60mins to build a new Puppy kernel on my desktop (very average power) so its no great burden to make them - kernel-kit has had quite a bit of work done to it in recent times and makes the process pretty easy.

_________________
LxPup = Puppy + LXDE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
saintless


Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3799
Location: Bulgaria

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jun 2017, 13:56    Post subject:  

peebee wrote:
I'm not sure it's that simple (but that may be my lack of understanding) as I think the kernel has to be built with all the patches for aufs - this is what kernel-kit in woof-ce does to build the Puppy kernels.......

Hi peebee.

The standard Debian/Ubuntu kernel should have all patches needed to boot with aufs. Debian-live also uses aufs (and also options to boot with unionfs and now overlayfs).
But seems someone already did this in woof-ce even without aufs:
https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/woof-CE/commit/d8c8b865cc3ead465fd54fcf9e4d1381958a516e

You can't share a good idea lately. Always someone else did the same and better before you Very Happy

Toni

_________________
Farewell, Nooby, you will be missed...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger 
mcewanw

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 3152
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jun 2017, 21:47    Post subject:  

Hi Toni,

A bit off-topic on my part (well definitely off-topic since not woof-ce, just kernel related): I have had a similar thought about tiny core linux who also compile their own kernel even for dCore which otherwise relies mainly on underlying Debian/Ubuntu reps. Wish they just used standard Debian or Ubuntu kernels for all the advantages you mention of bug/security fixes and so on. Surely the increase in Puppy (or tiny core size) would not be significant enough to make that the reason for all the work re-inventing the wheel/compiling customised kernel). The Linux kernel is just the Linux kernel, the other aspects of the underlying operation and look and feel of the distribution basically remain Puppy however the kernel has been made.

Compiling custom kernel is I suppose just that little extra step in an attempt for smaller distribution size but maybe one unnecessary step too far in terms of lots of effort for little advantage. Like you said, Debian kernel has provision/mechanisms for providing aufs support, so not a reason to need customised kernel compiling (and lots can go wrong with customised builds - it is so important and complex - better to rely on bigger development team for that).

Using stock kernels would have no negative effect on the features Pelo talks about - the 'passengers' product result should be pretty much identical, whether stock or custom kernel is used in the build. Passengers want something that 'reliably' works - well-maintained stock kernels much more likely to guarantee that result longterm.

William

_________________
SomeOfMyWork with links:
dCoreDog
weX, scrox, Precord, Premote, fokSyfEyeR, xhippo-mod, flite_hts_pet

Last edited by mcewanw on Fri 16 Jun 2017, 22:56; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
mcewanw

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 3152
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jun 2017, 22:30    Post subject:  

Come to think of it... if you want the smallest possible system then the kernel should be compiled for a specific machine, for its specific hardware, for efficiency and to avoid the need for unnecessary external-to-kernel hardware driver modules. Otherwise, any kernel, for general use has to be somewhat general purpose.

A Puppy system could be built a little bit smaller for a specified machine hardware, but generally not significant enough to justify the effort. Actually, it is more likely to be developers (not passengers) who would consider customising their own systems in that way - lots of tinkering and risk in terms of stability/security is involved - the kernel obviously being a key component to get right so, for all but the tinkerers/developer-hobbyists, using well-maintained stock kernel should be preferred approach. Hence I don't understand Pelo's negative remarks regarding use of stock Debian kernels (or well-tested kernels from other major Linux system distributors) ...

I personally have a reasonable amount of technical proficiency, but still I would prefer to use stock kernels most of the time because its safer, easier, and leaves time for doing other things of more importance getting my system how I want it. It also means I can steal apps/modules/libs from the bigger distributions with much more certainly they will work as expected (particularly if I am also using lib components from these same distributions). i.e. customised kernel is a negative, not a plus

_________________
SomeOfMyWork with links:
dCoreDog
weX, scrox, Precord, Premote, fokSyfEyeR, xhippo-mod, flite_hts_pet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
saintless


Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3799
Location: Bulgaria

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jun 2017, 23:12    Post subject:  

Hi William, nice to read comments from you again Smile
mcewanw wrote:
Come to think of it... if you want the smallest possible system then the kernel should be compiled for a specific machine, for its specific hardware, for efficiency and to avoid the need for unnecessary external-to-kernel hardware driver modules.

Actually Puppy-Rus-A from sfs has this tool. It makes very small custom kernel for the machine you run the tool and only the modules in use. I wrote about this long time ago in some of the DD threads. Maybe Puppy has similar option but I'm not sure.

Running official main Distro kernel is a big advantage regarding security fixes in my opinion. But adapting Puppy init to boot different distro has also some advantages from my testing. But lets not continue this discussion here. Maybe I will open new thread after some more testing.

Done:
https://github.com/MintPup/Puppy-Linux/tree/master/Debian-kernel

Toni

_________________
Farewell, Nooby, you will be missed...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 66 of 66 [985 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 64, 65, 66
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Announcements
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0526s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0037s) ][ GZIP on ]