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 Mon 21 Oct 2019, 19:58
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Projects » Next Puppy Development
Where the puppylinux 9 should focus on?.
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 3 of 5 [74 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Where the puppylinux 9 should focus on?
Help hold onto their turn-of-the-century computers
10%
 10%  [ 4 ]
Become an entry system for the aspiring hacker/developer
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Become a minimal modular system (a’la tinycore)
5%
 5%  [ 2 ]
Expand its size and become a “provide everything OOTB” (a’ la Mint or Elementary), but in a layered OS
5%
 5%  [ 2 ]
Maintain current focus and try to increase conformity (and likely size) with more traditional linuxes and built methods
36%
 36%  [ 14 ]
“whatever” as long as we have fun…
21%
 21%  [ 8 ]
All/None of the above
21%
 21%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 38

Author Message
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1815
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Thu 04 Apr 2019, 06:41    Post subject:  

I didn't vote for the current majority preference:

Quote:
Maintain current focus and try to increase conformity (and likely size) with more traditional linuxes and built methods


because I don't understand what it means by "increased conformity". Perhaps that could be explained? In general I see little point in system/package-management/conformity with say "Debian or Ubuntu" distributions. If I want Debian or Ubuntu, I'll use Debian or Ubuntu (or one of the Dogs, which gives much the same thing but with puppy-like flexibility). But like I say, I don't know what "increased conformity" is intended to imply here.

EDIT: Nor is it clear what is meant by "traditional linuxes" - lots of live distros been a tradition for a long time now - even from long ago with DamnSmallLinux and Knoppix and so on. Or is it about "multi-user" capability, or filesystem structure, or what? Not sure how so many could know to vote for that one in terms of understanding what it means.

Come to think of it, I don't really know what the "current focus" actually is - whilst I see and have tried the pups that woof-CE currently builds, I have no idea what the focus for future development actually is. Has such a thing actually been discussed or determined? I imagined that was what this poll was supposed to determine - so what is the "current focus" that people are voting for?

EDIT2: I shouldn't have voted I think. But " anything goes as long as its fun" category is certainly fine with me.

wiak

Last edited by wiak on Thu 04 Apr 2019, 06:56; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 3070

PostPosted: Thu 04 Apr 2019, 06:48    Post subject:  

nic007 wrote:
An observation - More than a quarter of those that voted selected the all of the above/none of the above option. This to me says that the poll can not be seen to cover all scenarios and that puppyists who voted for that category surely have something to add to this thread in the form of commentary (and not restricted to a vote only)...and should be encouraged to do so.

Sure, but as I said in the opening post
Quote:
PS: If you have other options for the poll pls let me know.


If there is (a) well defined (in a single line) option(s) that you would like me to add please provide it.

_________________
== Here is how to solve your Linux problems fast ==
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
dancytron

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Posts: 1373

PostPosted: Thu 04 Apr 2019, 13:56    Post subject:  

mavrothal wrote:
nic007 wrote:
An observation - More than a quarter of those that voted selected the all of the above/none of the above option. This to me says that the poll can not be seen to cover all scenarios and that puppyists who voted for that category surely have something to add to this thread in the form of commentary (and not restricted to a vote only)...and should be encouraged to do so.

Sure, but as I said in the opening post
Quote:
PS: If you have other options for the poll pls let me know.


If there is (a) well defined (in a single line) option(s) that you would like me to add please provide it.


"Maintain current focus and try to increase conformity (and likely size) with more traditional linuxes and built methods" should really be 2 choices,

1. Maintain current focus [while continuing to fine tune usability issues]

2 try to increase conformity (and likely size) with more traditional linuxes and build methods.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 3070

PostPosted: Thu 04 Apr 2019, 16:03    Post subject:  

dancytron wrote:


"Maintain current focus and try to increase conformity (and likely size) with more traditional linuxes and built methods" should really be 2 choices,

1. Maintain current focus [while continuing to fine tune usability issues]

2 try to increase conformity (and likely size) with more traditional linuxes and build methods.


It certainly could, but should it be. Do you think that these should be mutually exclusive?
I think that some of the usability issues are stemming from this lack of conformity that forces hack upon hack and eventually is getting harder and harder to address all issues in an effective way.
But I guess if you are not hit by such issues you do not really care about conformity...
Hmmm,... maybe I'll wait for some additional input before I split that.
Nobody is voting anyway!

_________________
== Here is how to solve your Linux problems fast ==
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
HerrBert

Joined: 03 Nov 2016
Posts: 91
Location: NRW, Germany

PostPosted: Thu 04 Apr 2019, 16:24    Post subject:  

Not voting yet, as i don't understand the choices...

When it comes to talking about Puppy Linux, i always refer to
http://puppylinux.org/main/Overview%20and%20Getting%20Started.htm
I think that site, though quite outdated, has it all.

About confirmity i have to ask if you mean uniformity (pardon - not native english speaking...)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1815
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Thu 04 Apr 2019, 17:21    Post subject:  

dancytron wrote:


1. Maintain current focus [while continuing to fine tune usability issues]

2 try to increase conformity (and likely size) with more traditional linuxes and build methods.


I still don't get what "current focus" is: do you mean woof-CE build system, which restricts looking at alternative build systems since these naturally result in non-woof-ce 'official' "puppy-like" pups. In that definition of what Puppy is (woof-CE generated) - fundamentally woof-CE really is Puppy.

Unfortunately, woof-CE is interactive in design and not particularly flexible. It seems to have one main use - churning out new versions of Pups derived from upstream Debian/Ubuntu/Slackware new versions. i.e. Every time a new Ubuntu comes out - modify the woof-CE recipe (along with any hard-coded changes in woof-CE scripts themselves, where necessary) and then churn out the new Pup. Yes, there is a little flexibility in that packages installed can to some extent be selected, but that selection is limited by what woof-CE allows.

A poll can be a good idea. Problem is the poll has to be carefully designed first. It is not enough to say extra categories can be added - that doesn't work when a poll is already underway! So we end up with one view of what the categories should be - and the wording of the categories in the form that one viewpoint wants it to be - so far from being Community oriented, the poll ends up being one category slanted viewpoint - the poll simply allowing others to select what is already just one overall viewpoint.

Depending how the questions are asked to some extent influences the selections and the offered selection already influence the result.

nosystemdthanks already opened a more universal thread with a 'specification driven' model of design/development. Certainly his current spec is very much user-driven-top-level only, but in practice anyone who has worked professionally in design/development know that it is modern practice that such work is specification driven, and in a hierarchical sense: top level design and different layers of spec down to the most technical. An example is this very internet we are using, which is designed/developed on the basis of specifications, which are rather misleadingly called "Requests For Comments (RFCs)". But these RFCs are specifications - their flexibility comes from the fact that they do not impose the final implementation methodologies to be used to satisfy the RFCs. nosystemdthanks plans to use his fig system in implementation for handling/interpreting/parsing the specs themselves, but again that would only be one implementation with no limit on other alternative spec-handling-implementations being used.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1023562

Alas, community driven design may not produce the greatest design - in practice, do-ocracy principle tends to produce actual results - quite often by one person + some help or feedback from others, or from a team that somehow have similar ideas and get together to share the work. nosystemdthanks seems correct, however, that a specification driven model of design does allow better user input depending on their interests and current technical abilities.

woof-CE is pretty much a fixed design, whose purpose simply seems to have been to allow traditional Pups to be created in the future. It does not encourage divergence from that model. Of course if Puppy users want Puppy fixed in that past mould, I suppose woof-CE is a good 'guardian' to force that. Yes, changes can be made to woof-CE, but its overall design is pretty much fixed.

So I don't think this poll is very relevant to the real problem of determining Puppy's future. The questions included in the poll needed to be designed by the community prior to being 'run' as a poll. A major question should be regarding whether woof-CE methodology itself has reached end-of-life and should be re-written by some capable interested team - and that 'would' include all options for a re-write (hopefully) including ideas from the so-called puppy-like distros that hold so much interest on this forum nowadays.

A suitable lower-level package general ABSTRACT specification, in the mould suggested for top-level specification by nosystemdthanks, could be made general enough to allow it to be used for translation of other distro repo actual package repo formats. A new Puppy build system could be designed to translate these abstract specifications to produce an actual Puppy - that could be written to be properly scriptable (which could then easily be provided with a user-friendly GUI frontend). But as far as this poll is concerned it does not contain community-driven categories of desire/need and hence is simply likely to cement what is already currently a cemented woof-CE view of "what Puppy is" - a view which is highly guarded and promoted by some who have invested a lot of their time into that current (I say obsolete) build system. All that can be done to current woof-CE is to hack it endlessly - that won't bring Puppy design forward.

wiak

_________________
Tiny Linux Blog: http://www.tinylinux.info/
Check Firmware: www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1022797
tinycore/slitaz: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=990130#990130

Last edited by wiak on Thu 04 Apr 2019, 22:26; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
6502coder


Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 646
Location: Western United States

PostPosted: Thu 04 Apr 2019, 17:42    Post subject:  

I find it hard to answer a poll like this because for me, one of the great things about Puppy is the way interesting new versions pop up unexpectedly. Radky's DPupStretch 7.5 is a perfect example: I am really enjoying this pup, but having been mostly a UPup user, it would never have occurred to me to ask for something like DPupStretch.

In any case, I am dubious about the possibility of "focussing" the efforts of our diverse community of developers. The phrase "herding cats" comes to mind Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1815
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Thu 04 Apr 2019, 19:09    Post subject:  

6502coder wrote:
In any case, I am dubious about the possibility of "focussing" the efforts of our diverse community of developers. The phrase "herding cats" comes to mind Laughing


Of course, it doesn't make sense to try and herd intelligent creative minds via unlimited tenure gatekeepers to any build system. In that model there is no actual "community" and certainly not a "community of developers".

To achieve such a community, a build process would have to be designed that flexibly provided for community involvement, rather than an inflexible mould that the community is forced to use via its gatekeepers.

If all people want is current Puppy, sometimes tweaked and remastered, and able to be re-created (in terms of newer packages used) when upstream Debian/Ubuntu/Slackware bring out new versions, then they already basically have that. It's more difficult to actually keep up with new versions of these upstream distros though since it is often more than simply the package repos that changes over time - upstream distros develop and include many innovations, which woof-CE isn't designed to cater for - currently trying to keep up with any of that requires major hacking of woof-CE itself and such work, as I say, is not really community developer led.

But if Puppy build system was designed/developed from a much more abstract, hierarchical specification driven (like internet RFCs) design system, the design of Puppy (and the variety of implementations) would become wide-open from the point of view of all developers on this forum. All sorts of different Pup types could then be expected over time as individuals and small or larger teams implement the design specifications (that "would define what Puppy is") in their own ways.

The only part of the process then being 'controlled', in that its content has to be decided somehow, would be the specifications themselves, which can certainly be more easily defined by true community consensus. Even that doesn't need to be at all fixed in concrete - anyone should be able to submit an RFC-like spec, which in that sense is indeed a request for comments prior to testing and further comments and so on until adopted or not as an official builder spec. Implementation being undefined means developers can use all sorts of methodologies for their creations without asking permission of any other 'cat'; the result are lots of Pups that currently would be written off as only being "puppy-like" since not built on a churn-out-a-pup set-in-hackable-concrete woof-CE.

Of course, the forum would then need to accept the reality of that Puppy diversity and be structured accordingly to give all Pup creations their due visibility. Moreover, I'm talking about possible 'future' direction for Puppy - Puppy build system in that form doesn't exist at all at this present minute and Rome, as they say, was not built in a day. Rather, I'm suggesting Puppy 'team' should stop being so insistent about woof-CE being the one and true Pup - it has had its day and purpose - but if that is the future then interest in Pup will surely slowly wane (if it hasn't already).

wiak

_________________
Tiny Linux Blog: http://www.tinylinux.info/
Check Firmware: www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1022797
tinycore/slitaz: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=990130#990130
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1815
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Thu 04 Apr 2019, 23:37    Post subject:  

Actually, in terms of specifying or proposing anything that is acceptable by a community as a standard, whilst remaining somewhat flexible, the following simple RFC is worth a look:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

That's just a simple idea, that just helps with some of the wording. I'm certainly not suggesting adopting full RFC procedures to help design a future Puppy Linux - RFC procedures are for a hugely complex system (the operability of the whole Internet...), which requires a huge standardisation process, which is way more than what is required for Puppy (which overall needs a KISS approach). But still some of the ideas are useful templates.

IETF Tao wrote:
Every IETF standard is published as an RFC (a "Request for Comments,"
but everyone just calls them RFCs), and every RFC starts out as an
Internet Draft (often called an "I-D"). The basic steps for getting
something published as an IETF standard are as follows:

1. Publish the document as an Internet Draft.

2. Receive comments on the draft.

3. Edit your draft based on the comments.

4. Repeat steps 1 through 3 a few times.

5. Ask an Area Director to take the draft to the IESG (if it's an
individual submission). If the draft is an official Working
Group product, the WG chair asks the AD to take it to the IESG.

6. Make any changes deemed necessary by the IESG (this might include
giving up on becoming a standard).

7. Wait for the document to be published by the RFC Editor.

A much more complete explanation of these steps is contained in
[BCP9], "The Internet Standards Process".


In lots of detail: https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp9

One thing I think is particularly important for Puppy development as a community resource: The murga forum Puppy community (not woof-CE 'gatekeepers') should be the final arbitrator (acting like the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), which is above even the IESG) in any dispute be it technical or organisational, or whatever - not any individual given some overseeing, chairman type role - assumed or otherwise. Conflict Resolution:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp9#section-6.5

But no point getting swamped with RFC procedures exemplar. Main thing is, nosystemdthanks simple specification approach is a good starting point for actual advance of and design/system-development.

wiak

_________________
Tiny Linux Blog: http://www.tinylinux.info/
Check Firmware: www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1022797
tinycore/slitaz: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=990130#990130
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mavrothal


Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 3070

PostPosted: Fri 05 Apr 2019, 00:25    Post subject:  

6502coder wrote:
I find it hard to answer a poll like this because for me, one of the great things about Puppy is the way interesting new versions pop up unexpectedly.

that sounds to me as "whatever, as long as we have fun" Very Happy (a fine choice by the way)

6502coder wrote:
The phrase "herding cats" comes to mind

I love that video
Though it is far from my intention. I was just hoping to record if there is some specific prevailing sentiment among forum members but the bismal numbers of participation does not allow even that.

Edit: add herding paragraph

_________________
== Here is how to solve your Linux problems fast ==

Last edited by mavrothal on Fri 05 Apr 2019, 00:58; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wanderer

Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 1112

PostPosted: Fri 05 Apr 2019, 00:27    Post subject:  

hi all

since this is a thread on puppy's future
i think this an appropriate post

i am using BionicPup32
and it is a masterpiece
so the woof-ce system is producing great work

however puppy should not limit itself to only 1 build system

s243a is working on what i believe is a truly groundbreaking system

as i understand it it will consist of

1. a core

2. a package manager that can download applications from various sources and attach them to the core

since the core will be derived in some measure from pupngo
it will be a puppy

this will allow the fast and easy building of unique distros

and one will only need to maintain the core and the package manager
to maintain the project

also it would allow non gurus to participate
because they would only need to run the package manager
to build a distro

you could make the recipe for the core and the specific build into a file
so they were reproducible

and you could instruct the package manager to save the downloaded components in a directory
so that you would not need to download everything again for each build


i hope i didn't offend s243a by mentioning this but it is just too extraordinary to not advertise

wanderer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1815
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Fri 05 Apr 2019, 01:38    Post subject:  

Quote:
PS: If you have other options for the poll pls let me know.
PS2: this is for puppylinux “the distribution”, not puppylinux inspired OSs
PS3: I put this up just out of curiosity and do not intend to personally act upon any outcome (except the "as long as we have fun" Laughing ).


Puppy development is simply a subtopic of Puppy Projects and there isn't even a subtopic for the so-called puppy-inspired distros, or puppy-lookalike distros, or distros that purposively also provide puppy-like functionality (they are actually inspired by many other distros out there in the world - not only Puppy). If Puppy development is important on the forum that seems like another forum organisation issue that could do with being fixed. I suspect many Puppy forum members won't even notice this thread, like alone the overall subtopic. Even less forum members probably ever visit woof-CE github so the so-called "Open" discussions held there are completely unknown about to most of us either. As for the restricted visibility of non-woof-CE puppy-inspired projects: no New User or Regular User threads for them of course - not even a sticky thread to decribe their existence. Hard therefore to bother with polls about Puppy future direction when such restricted practices taking place. On the forum, at least, I utterly blame the forum moderator for not taking action to protect the interests of everyone here. I used to think this was a great and open forum - events have shown that it certainly isn't now.

Anyway, if Puppy remains in its inflexible woof-CE-dictated-format, other distros will naturally appear on the forum, which will move the game ahead (despite their lack of overall acknowledgement/visibility/promotion on the forum where they were created by its members) - already happened of course with Pussy-Linux -> DebianDog series and more since. Puppy development suffers because of inward-looking attitude (despite it relying otherwise and elsewhere on upstream repos...).

This poll thread is naturally going nowhere fast in these narrow-viewpoint circumstances.

It would be better to contribute to an active suggestion thread, such as nosystemdthanks thread on development via specification (inclusive of Puppy and non-Puppy systems), in the active Programming section, rather than a passive poll for anyone's individual self-interest curiousity:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=115760

wiak

_________________
Tiny Linux Blog: http://www.tinylinux.info/
Check Firmware: www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1022797
tinycore/slitaz: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=990130#990130
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 2133

PostPosted: Fri 05 Apr 2019, 03:25    Post subject:  

I haven't voted on this poll because I feel that I could argue for or against each option and this leaves me feeling that this poll cannot capture the important nuances. Wiak's comment though captures somthing that I think is quite important.

wiak wrote:

Anyway, if Puppy remains in its inflexible woof-CE-dictated-format, other distros will naturally appear on the forum, which will move the game ahead (despite their lack of overall acknowledgement/visibility/promotion on the forum where they were created by its members) - already happened of course with Pussy-Linux -> DebianDog series and more since. Puppy development suffers because of inward-looking attitude (despite it relying otherwise and elsewhere on upstream repos...).


Note that this is less of an issue for both Fatdog64 or EasyOS since they are built from source but if one is providing a large repository of packages there are a lot of compile options that one can optimize so perhaps even when compiling from source there is some basis of default compile options.

Anyway, why this is important to me is that when I tried installing synergy via tahrpups package manager, I got way too many unneeded systemd dependencies and worse yet these dependencies might have been incompatable with my system. l can only imagine the situation getting worse with the large repos and given that WoofCE has dropped support for some linux varients, I worry that relying too much on only a few major linux variants puppy is heading in the direction of much unneeded bloat.

The truth is though that by the time that you install a top of the line browser you will probably end up with a lot of bloat no matter what you do but this doesn't mean that we should not do our best to try to avoid this situation.

I've found some modern version of puppy (e.g. Xenial and Slacko64.6.9.9.9) run very slow on my computers and others run much better like "dpup strech" and "uPup Bionic Beaver". I feel that modern puppies are pushing the edge of my system where some pass and some are slughish where older versions run much swifter.

It is inevitable that newer software will demand more from a system but we shouldn't be complacent about it. Looking for the bottle necks and bloat should be an important goal. In this vein I like the philsophy behind Slacko 5.7.2 Community Edition and perhaps the optimizations made in it would solve the problem of some newer puppies having slugish performance on my computer.

That said "Slacko 5.7.2 Community Edition" doesn't address the question about what binaries or alternatively source we should use but I do believe that one goal of the puppy build system (currently woofCE) should be to provide enough flexiblility so that if someone needs to use a repo with less bloat than the few major version of linux repos that woofCE currently supports than they can easily do so. Granted one doesn't necessarily need woofCE to do this but so long as the mantra here is "official puppy is a woofCE build" then in my opinion it should be a priority for woofCE to support repos with less bloat than the major distros.

As a final note I believe that woofCE needs to stay flexible enough to support old hardware so please don't for instance drop boot code which provides support for older hardware just to make the code a little cleaner.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
darry19662018

Joined: 31 Mar 2018
Posts: 639
Location: Rakaia

PostPosted: Sun 07 Apr 2019, 05:29    Post subject:  

Over the last week I have been somewhat dismayed at how pulseaudio and systemd are creeping into puppy - for example stretch has pnmixer instead of retrovol an app that doen't rely on pulseaudio I also see the dependency of systemd with xorg server this very bad. Puppy is an independent distro and should in future avoid this rubbish.

I would like to see T2 returned to Woof CE to build a slimmer pup like Racy, 4.31 etc as well Devaun which is frankly a better base than systemd infected debian and ubuntu.

Also look into other distros like alpine and void linux for bases.

_________________
Puppy Linux Wiki: http://wikka.puppylinux.com/HomePage

https://freemedia.neocities.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
wiak

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1815
Location: not Bulgaria

PostPosted: Sun 07 Apr 2019, 08:41    Post subject:  

darry19662018 wrote:
Also look into other distros like alpine and void linux for bases.


I'm using void everyday at the moment - and, really, the underlying system methodology (runit) and its amazingly good but specially tailored repo offerings seem like a dream fit for what would be a great upstream repo for Pup builds (assuming it was too difficult to automate compiling its own repos via T2, which continues to be developed, or OpenEmbedded, or BarryK fork of that as used in EasyOS as far as I remember reading, which, I can't help but feel, is a more interesting distro than Puppy itself nowadays).

As provided, Void has that big limitation that it is really expected to be installed as a full install - so it is just waiting for someone to come along and either take its live CD version and implement layering/persistence and extra sfs loading capabilities (maybe someone done this already? - I can't find info on that, though I am experimenting with it myself), or... to create a Puppy version that utilizes its underlying non-systemd boot system and its repo offerings.

I too am disillusioned with Puppy using Debian/Ubuntu/Slackware pretty much only nowadays - like I said, when it comes to Debian/Ubuntu the Dogs do that almost perfectly already. Pups were supposed to be slim, fast, and easy to use and easy on system resource use - I really think their current development is way off track and whilst lots of code in woof-CE could be re-used, I really feel the overall build system should be re-invented/re-thought. Again, I wonder if EasyOS mechanisms should be examined more closely and integrated into Puppy - albeit with a radically different commandline driven build system. Sorry, but I really don't like woof design. I like Debian debootstrap ease-of-use and functionality though and how it can be added to via later stage chroot manipulations. Having said that, woof-CE can be usefully used with chroot towards end of build too as I documented here:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=966512#966512

wiak

_________________
Tiny Linux Blog: http://www.tinylinux.info/
Check Firmware: www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1022797
tinycore/slitaz: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=990130#990130
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 3 of 5 [74 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Projects » Next Puppy Development
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: 0.2085s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0157s) ][ GZIP on ]