Is there an RPM tool for Fatdog 7.10

For talk and support relating specifically to Puppy derivatives
Post Reply
Message
Author
PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

Is there an RPM tool for Fatdog 7.10

#1 Post by PappyPuppy »

I am running an install_server script and it stops with the message:

"Unable to query RPM for package names. RPM must be installed and functioning for package installations."

I will look under ibiblio, maybe I just didn't load it.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

I know thereis a link

#2 Post by PappyPuppy »

But it's not an RPM installation or is it?

User avatar
csipesz
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri 08 Nov 2013, 17:08
Location: Isaszeg, Hungary

#3 Post by csipesz »

Excuse me dear PappyPuppy, but it does not disturb you, that this is the Advanced Topics/Derivatives here, not though the House Training/Anything?
Or - why you do not write actually into a Fatdog topic?

s243a
Posts: 2580
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 04:48
Contact:

#4 Post by s243a »

I believe I've done this before by using the rpm2pet tool
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=39756

and then converting the pet to a fatdog64 package. However, maybe look to see if their is a slack-build package available first and if not try compiling it from source on your own. I believe that you'll get better results this way. As a further plus the sandbox.sh too makes it very easy to build packages in fatdog64.

Also before you do anything simply try right clicking on the rpm file. There might already be an option to convert the rpm package into a fatdog64 package.

As a final option you can simply extract the files and build the fatdog64 package from the extracted binaries. If your interested I can give you further instructions.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

Hi, thank you for the idea of what to try

#5 Post by PappyPuppy »

I have been off this forum due to it was not working on my machine - I was getting an SQL query not achieved error whenever I clicked on a thread.

I will boot up and try your ideas and hopefully one or more of them will work.

The project I'm working on has software written for and tested on RedHat and Solaris - written like 10 years ago. I normally try to find the source code, then simply compile and all is well. And sometimes a .deb file will work. I just haven't yet tried an RPM. We'll see how it goes. I'm not that worried if it fails - I'll work around it somehow.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

I opened the RPM files in PupZip

#6 Post by PappyPuppy »

Then I was able to extract them to directories.

s243a
Posts: 2580
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 04:48
Contact:

Re: I opened the RPM files in PupZip

#7 Post by s243a »

PappyPuppy wrote:Then I was able to extract them to directories.
If the package is that old then the binaries might be 32bit, in which cas you'll need to install the 32 bit compatibility layer.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

Is there an RPM tool for Fatdog 7.10 - A Justification

#8 Post by PappyPuppy »

I have a slight problem because I am about to build a driver for an IBM tape drive(s) on Fatdog, which was originally designed only to run on Redhat (certain releases) and Solaris. It might NOT work, or it might. To me, that is stepping the bounds of Fatdog kindergarten, at least into 1st or 2nd grade.

For example:
1) My first command for the build will be as follows:

rpmbuild --rebuild lin_tape-1.xx.0-1.src.rpm

The above command will build an rpm file that I will then install with the following additional command:

rpm -ivh /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/lin_taped-1.xx.0-rhel5.i386.rpm

except I will replace the redhat everywhere with fatdog.

After this research is done (which is hard because I don't have an rpm nor rpmbuild command), I will simply work with newer tape drives that are better supported software-wise, so I don't strain myself or this forum with my crazy requests for threads. I am very sorry that I chose to build a driver on an OS for which it never had any support. And I'm sorry that I only spent a small amount of money on tape drives, to avoid buying the newer ones. That's just my style - I start out with basics. So soon I will be done with older tape drives and concentrate almost entirely on newer ones.

I just want to finish this project for completeness sake to see "IF IT CAN BE DONE".

So that is my justification - ie. I'm getting ready to dive into waters for which there are no rpm nor rpmbuild commands, and I have to substitute something fast or I will get stuck.

What's cool is that today I found the source code for the drivers for my tape drive as it's fairly generic and will work with many of IBM's tape drives.

For the record, I DO have the src RPM file all unzipped so I can browse the source files, the Makefile, etc.. In theory, I could simply try to build it all without rpm.

Perhaps this is where the "sandbox" comes in? I'll have to see if I can experiment with running some rpm/rpmbuild outside of fatdog. Otherwise, I'll have to try to build it rather tediously by understanding the makefile. I suspect that I will have to fully understand the makefile anyway.

Another thought occured to me that's similar to the Adapter Design pattern in software engineering. Could I take the source directories and files, and package them up to something that would go like this:

rpmFatdogbuild --rebuild lin_tape-1.xx.0-1.src.rpmFatdog

In other words, does Fatdog have an automatic command to build a package from source and then another command, to install it from the binary package? HMMPH!

:oops:

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

I may have accidentally deleted a /lib/modules/4.4.35 file

#9 Post by PappyPuppy »

the folder kernel
modules.alias
modules.alias.bin
modules.builtin
modules.builtin.bin
modules.dep
modules.dep.bin
modules.devname
modules.order
modules.softdep
modules.symbols
modules.symbols.bin

I do not have a build directory or command, and I might have deleted a file - I accidentaly slipped with the mouse and moved it to another folder and then I deleted that file. I thought I could undelete it.

My make is failing because there is no build, I don't mind if later it can't rpm.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

I am downloading kernel-modules.sfs-4.4.35 now

#10 Post by PappyPuppy »

Hopefully, I'll rebuild that directory from that file somehow.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

I am also downloading kernel-source-4.4.35.sfs

#11 Post by PappyPuppy »

4.4.35 directory.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

I found an rpm symbolic link

#12 Post by PappyPuppy »

I'll have to busybox --help - maybe this might help after I find a way to open .sfs files and see if I lost a file.

So busybox will run whatever utility it can using those symbolic links or however. It has rpm. Now I need to see if I can get a build directory.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

I have now unsquashed that .sfs file I mentioned

#13 Post by PappyPuppy »

squashfs-root
squashfs-root/lib
squashfs-root/lib/modules
squashfs-root/lib/modules/4.4.35
squashfs-root/lib/modules/4.4.35/build

Mine doesn't have build and it this output does not show the files.

I issued the command
unsquashfs -l -f kernel-source-4.4.35.sfs > list.out

I need to list the files too.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

Ok, I now realize I need to look at

#14 Post by PappyPuppy »

I made a silly mistake and looked at the src. Under ibiblio, I needed to look at the one with the actual files.

Under that, I see:

squashfs-root/lib/modules/4.4.35/modules.alias, modules.alias.bin, modules.builtin, modules.builtin.bin, modules.dep, modules.dep.bin, modules.devname, modules.order, modules.softdep, modules.symbols, and modules.symbols.bin.

So I should be able to compare now. I do NOT see the build part so perhaps I need to build that for myself.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

I am now unsquashing the files

#15 Post by PappyPuppy »

just created 51,297 files and 4765 directories, and 13 symlinks, when all I wanted was the lib/modules/4.4.35/build.

Hard command to use:

I typede unsquashfs -f -d squashfs-root/lib/modules/4.4.35 kernel-source-4.4.35.sfs thinking it would give me what I wanted.

Man, was I wrong. I got more than what I wanted by a long shot.

PappyPuppy
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat 01 Oct 2016, 00:27

Now I just lost everything.

#16 Post by PappyPuppy »

I have now rebooted after my entire computer locked up after running unsquashfs and having it go awry - not sure why.

My computer is now rebooted. I will take the rest of the day off- I'm working too hard on this.

I need to somehow get the source code for the rest of the missing lib/modules/4.4.35 .

Just curious if anyone knows why the binaries were missiing?

Perhaps just a minor mistake or perhaps I have a later version than 7.10?

I'm a bit confused. Later today, I'll try to build the missing binaries. It might be easy. I need them.

And another thing: perhaps we can have a command rpmbuild added to the busybox. I'll look into that but I don't know enough at this point.

Pelo

no need of a Fedora Puppy :!:

#17 Post by Pelo »

RPM are the Fedora pets. If we can use them as debian ones no need of a Fedora Puppy :!:
proposal here
Fedora han nothing to offer in fact that cannot be found in Debian.
pets available as Fedora RPM are available as Debian.
:cry: soory i answered the wrong post, i wanted to post about rpm2pet and deb2pet, Dejan topic

Post Reply