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 Thu 08 Dec 2016, 20:13
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions
Phasing out PETs
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 1 of 5 [71 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
Rodney Byne

Joined: 31 Jan 2014
Posts: 100

PostPosted: Wed 06 Jul 2016, 17:05    Post subject:  Phasing out PETs  

Hi,
I trust this new thread isn't misplaced.
Somewhere deeply hidden in the puppy blog,
is Micko's proposal to eventually get rid of PETs
among other changes for future distro designs.

This would be a shame, as particularly OscarTalks
Index of PETs is a useful source of add-on apps.
eg. I notice he always keeps Flash-plugin versions bang up to date.

If this materialises, perhaps the above and other useful
PET app sources could be archived for easy access to all.
Regards.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jlst

Joined: 23 Nov 2012
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Wed 06 Jul 2016, 17:25    Post subject:  

.
Last edited by jlst on Tue 12 Jul 2016, 21:46; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Rodney Byne

Joined: 31 Jan 2014
Posts: 100

PostPosted: Wed 06 Jul 2016, 19:26    Post subject: more on this---  

Yes ok noted jlst.
I'm relatively new to Linux at 71 and the learning curve
associated with the subject, after leaving Windows
behind and my first-hand terrors of virus infections.

The ease of Puppy and its offshoots seemed a safe
haven from all of that and reading forums gave me
a good insight into how it all fitted together.

I'm not a coder or compiler, so the distro building blocks
of words like Woof and bones that Barry K created
seemed strange when I first dipped a toe in the water
to install to usb then try out his innovated work.

I realise this must seem old hat to compilers like Micko
who forked out on their own to modernise operating systems.
Though for me as Barry explained some years ago - the Pet
is the equivalent of an executable windows application -
just click on it and the program will self-install.

I thought that was a marvellous idea and still do, but
the world moves on and progresses new revolutionary
ideas I suppose. So you can see how I'm reluctant
to let go of something I'm just getting used to.
Regards.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
learnhow2code

Joined: 12 Jun 2016
Posts: 1015

PostPosted: Wed 06 Jul 2016, 19:35    Post subject:  

jlst wrote:
PET support will never go away, but the ability to build a puppy ISO based entirely on pet files only (something like puppy4, wary5) is already gone.


so i guess the question is: 1. what should package creators do now? .pet? .deb? vary on the distro? 2. what should puppy deriv authors do now? frugal+install+remaster? are there other ("standard"?) options we should know about?

_________________
users | devs
fig os 1.3 md5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
greengeek

Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 4329
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed 06 Jul 2016, 20:01    Post subject:  

I don't understand what is considered to be wrong with the idea of pets. It is a great way to add functionality. I especially benefit from it as I have no savefile and only load the programmes i want each session (programmes loaded via pets).

It means I can trial heaps of software without accidentally loading it permanently into a savefile.

SFS files dont work as well because they sit on the lowest level of Puppys layered system whereas pets sit on top - ie: you can use a pet to overwrite (and therefore override) a faulty file in the main Puppy sfs, but you cant achieve this by loading an sfs - it would sit below the main sfs and achieve nothing.

Long live pets!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jlst

Joined: 23 Nov 2012
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Wed 06 Jul 2016, 20:30    Post subject:  

.
Last edited by jlst on Tue 12 Jul 2016, 21:47; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 561

PostPosted: Wed 06 Jul 2016, 23:51    Post subject:  

jlst wrote:
The repos are there, i think micko is not going to delete them. Even the support for building pet-based puppies may come back in the future... we had a deleting rampage to clean up stuff and just went berserk.. but that doesn't mean that woofce puppies can't install PET files anymore, we just dropped support for building PET-based puppies (T2, quirky, whatever).

Those changes are still not visible, in fact nothing that happens in woofce git code repository is visible to anyone, for the first time users can monitor and comment on each change but nobody knows and nobody cares, so it doesn't matter anyway.


I hope the stuff is backed-up somewhere in case in the future this was decided as an over-zealous decision. I like the PET based system as it provides good cross platform support between puppies but I see that some puppy distros (e.g. fatdog64) have phased out the pet-get system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
tallboy


Joined: 21 Sep 2010
Posts: 604
Location: Oslo, Norway

PostPosted: Wed 06 Jul 2016, 23:57    Post subject:  

jlst wrote:
...for the first time users can monitor and comment on each change but nobody knows and nobody cares, so it doesn't matter anyway.

You have to know to care, but even if you both know and care, you don't necessarily have to tell anyone about how you care, but it matters even if nobody knows.

I do exactly like greengeek, I run without any savefile, an it only takes a few seconds to load a .pet when needed.

But I see some problems assosiated with that procedure, and that is when you delete that same .pet after using it, or you may simply change your mind. If the .pet add already excisting files to the system, it will remove them too. And that may cause some problems for other programs which used those files. I may be totally wrong about this, but I have sometimes had problems with other programs after removing a .pet. An .sfs is just removed whitout such issues. (I still don't like them)

But what is the alternative to a .pet?
jlst wrote:
There is Ubuntu, Debian, Devuan, Slackware and Gentoo. There are just too many sources for Puppy to get the basic stuff and work fine, like a parasite.. there's no need for anything else..

Does that mean that a future puppy will be some kind of mongrel without it's own genes? What is the point in such a puppy? You can just shave off some unnecessary Ubuntu functions, Oh! Great only 650Mb, and achieve the same?
Please elaborate!

tallboy

_________________
True freedom is a live Puppy on a multisession CD/DVD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jlst

Joined: 23 Nov 2012
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jul 2016, 00:14    Post subject:  

.
Last edited by jlst on Tue 12 Jul 2016, 21:48; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Trobin

Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 974
Location: BC Canada

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jul 2016, 01:44    Post subject:  

Puppy the Parasite - hmmm
_________________
http://speakpup.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jlst

Joined: 23 Nov 2012
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jul 2016, 01:53    Post subject:  

.
Last edited by jlst on Tue 12 Jul 2016, 21:50; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
learnhow2code

Joined: 12 Jun 2016
Posts: 1015

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jul 2016, 06:38    Post subject:  

jlst wrote:
This is gradually becoming a somewhat fast process, but the package manager needs a complete rewrite to allow cli usage and versatility.


cd / ; tar -xvf puppypackage.pet 2> /dev/null (although that wont run the install scripts.)

the annoying part is creating a .pet package, which is tied to a gui. i bet thats more easily fixed than creating a new system.

i do agree that the .pet system is fine. but i appreciate the fact that there are these new style puppies that came after .pet, and the potential for a new package is not all terrible. i really hate package manager changes in general. please keep it simple as possible-- the package system, not just the installer!

_________________
users | devs
fig os 1.3 md5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sailor Enceladus

Joined: 22 Feb 2016
Posts: 821

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jul 2016, 11:39    Post subject:  

jlst wrote:
Those changes are still not visible, in fact nothing that happens in woofce git code repository is visible to anyone, for the first time users can monitor and comment on each change but nobody knows and nobody cares, so it doesn't matter anyway.

Sometimes I notice Woof-CE says "Updated an hour ago" so I look at the testing, rationalise etc. branch commits and all the comments and nothing was updated for 12+ hours. I did wonder what mysterious "thing" was always being updated. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 561

PostPosted: Thu 07 Jul 2016, 22:00    Post subject:  

jlst wrote:
Hahaha i chose the wrong word, but you get the idea.

I mean Puppy does not descend from any other distro, but uses packages from other distros to run, the work to make this happen has been tremendous.. it's also incomplete and it's been very slow both at building puppies and the package manager itself.

This is gradually becoming a somewhat fast process, but the package manager needs a complete rewrite to allow cli usage and versatility.


You can use petget from the command line both to add and remove packages. Also you can see the installed packages installed by petget in the directory /root/packages.

I find browsing directories and text files much easier than navigating a package manager.

If a puppy distro doesn't have petget one could write a wrapper script for it which might even maintain this directory as an alternative way to view the installed packages.

Perhaps you should make a list of features that you would like to see in petget.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
learnhow2code

Joined: 12 Jun 2016
Posts: 1015

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jul 2016, 08:21    Post subject:  

s243a wrote:
You can use petget from the command line both to add and remove packages. Also you can see the installed packages installed by petget in the directory /root/packages.

I find browsing directories and text files much easier than navigating a package manager.


oh, thanks for this. as dialogs come up when i use petget i assumed they would stop puppy from running petget from a vt. youre right-- it works without x running at all.

i generally prefer to avoid x in puppy whenever i can. its not that i dislike x-- i use it for running a term, browser, and naturally graphical tools like graphics editors.

i am all for gui addons to management utilities, but i dont want to have to start x (or fiddle with the mouse, or hit tab 20 times) to use them.

_________________
users | devs
fig os 1.3 md5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 5 [71 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions
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: 0.0746s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0065s) ][ GZIP on ]