Puppy Linux Discussion Forum :: View topic - The State of Package Management

Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The time now is Fri 18 Apr 2014, 04:37
All times are UTC - 4

Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions

The State of Package Management
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga

View previous topic :: View next topic

Page 10 of 15 [222 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Should Puppy's package format be changed?

Yes, without backwards compatibility.

28%

[ 11 ]

Yes, with backwards compatibility.

25%

[ 10 ]

No, but the PET format should be standardized/stricter.

20%

[ 8 ]

No, the PET format works fine.

25%

[ 10 ]

Total Votes : 39

Author

Message

jemimah

Joined: 26 Aug 2009
Posts: 4309
Location: Tampa, FL

Posted: Tue 21 Feb 2012, 14:36 Post subject:

Moose On The Loose wrote:

This brings to mind a suggestion I made before. Perhaps if things are being worked on, it should be considered:

Make the layers like this:

*************************
Current work
*************************
root & my-documents & perhaps my-applications
*************************
All hardware related settings installed pets etc
*************************
Any loaded extending SFS files
*************************
The main SFS file
************************

This way, when someone changes machines or changes versions of puppy the documents he is working on etc can appear in the new machine or version without trouble. It would mean having two save files but other than that it would not be a major change to the way things are done except keeping track of the files from the pets. We know what directories have the
settings.

The order I show has the pets replacing the SFS files when there is a conflict. I think that this is the right order because the pets are usually done only after the first re-boot if you want to use some SFS.

AUFS really only writes to the top layer. Splitting the writable layers is not really feasible. What you can do is setup puppy how you like, then convert the contents of your save file to a pet, which you could install if you needed to start over for some reason. It's generally better to save documents and such in a location outside the save file.

jpeps

Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 3219

Posted: Tue 21 Feb 2012, 14:41 Post subject:

jemimah wrote:

For woof-installed packages, you can find a copy of the pet.specs in /root/woof-installed-packages. The pet.specs contains the package name, dependencies, and origin. The list of files is in /root/packags/builtin_files/<packagename>. Barry uses a compressed format that is different than the filelist for user installed packages, but all the information is there. The only thing that is discarded is the pinstall and puninstall scripts - most packages don't have these anyway.

Really? Try searching the various builtin names and let me know what the correct woof pet.spec is. The names could be easily searchable for the specific spec.

jemimah

Joined: 26 Aug 2009
Posts: 4309
Location: Tampa, FL

Posted: Tue 21 Feb 2012, 15:18 Post subject:

Searching the file is probably not as hard as you think it is.

Code:

cat woof-installed-packages | egrep ".*\|.*zip.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|"

jpeps

Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 3219

Posted: Tue 21 Feb 2012, 15:42 Post subject:

jemimah wrote:

Searching the file is probably not as hard as you think it is.

Code:

cat woof-installed-packages | egrep ".*\|.*zip.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|"

This is a start, but still doesn't work for names like "bc". It also takes too long and still needs more filtering out for use in a script. I also don't know if the builtin is using the dev package or not. Why not just use specific names in the builtin list? Note that the script has to account for a name like "acl" referencing "libacl1" (or at least I think that's what it's referencing).

"ed" could be "libedit" or "libedit2", each with separate devs (or who knows what else).

Code:

#!/bin/sh

OLD_IFS="${IFS}"
IFS="|"

cd /root/.packages

var=`cat woof-installed-packages | grep ${1} `

for i in $var; do
var=`echo "$i" | grep "^${1}"`
[ "$var" ] || echo "$i" | grep "^lib${1}"
done

IFS="${OLD_IFS}"

jemimah

Joined: 26 Aug 2009
Posts: 4309
Location: Tampa, FL

Posted: Tue 21 Feb 2012, 16:38 Post subject:

Sure it does

Code:

cat woof-installed-packages |egrep ".*\|bc\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|"

How long does this take for you?

Quote:

real 0m0.008s
user 0m0.006s
sys 0m0.002s

There wouldn't be an aliases problem if you weren't using compat packages - maintaining our own repo allows us to have consistent package names. But you can get a list of aliases from /root/.packages/PKGS_MANAGEMENT.

I think the builtins are that way because it takes less space. Don't like it? Fix it.

Code:

cat /root/.packages/builtin_files/<packagename> |
while read LINE ; do
if [[ $LINE =~ '/.*' ]] ; then
DIR=$LINE
continue
else
echo ${DIR}/$LINE
fi
done

jpeps

Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 3219

Posted: Tue 21 Feb 2012, 18:06 Post subject:

jemimah wrote:

Sure it does

Code:

cat woof-installed-packages |egrep ".*\|bc\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|"

How long does this take for you?

try it with "acl", "atk" , etc...

Also doesn't address the issues already mentioned. Thanks

I'll keep looking...
Last edited by jpeps on Tue 21 Feb 2012, 18:20; edited 1 time in total

sunburnt

Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 4980
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

Posted: Tue 21 Feb 2012, 18:19 Post subject:

Aitch; Exactly... Puppy`s always looking for a better version ( throw-away ).
I`ve used 3 at a time, each one doing something needed ( reboot ). Sad...

jemimah; I agree, Squash files are important to building an advanced O.S.
As I`ve said listing their advantages, there`s lots to like about Squash files.

jpeps; Why do you say this? In what manner is Puppy better? Boot options?

Quote:

The present system is light years ahead of something like TC.

T.C. is crude to be sure, but some of it`s basic design is superior to Puppy.

I agree with amigo in that loading apps. into ram is a waste of ram space.
The Squash file takes ~1/3 the apps. size, and running it uses more ram.
Same with a swap, uses ram, slows the O.S. down, and works the H.D.
But to do without a swap a PC needs at least 1GB of ram ( arguably more ).

I always thought the config. files in one save and app. installs in another.
Mixing everything together is a mess and prone to save file corruption.
But if there`s a Linux partition, why have a save file? Use save directories.

Yes, most Puppy installs are frugal, and that says a lot. "Method of choice".
Frugal installs are far less prone to corruption and viruses ( but not perfect ).

jpeps

Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 3219

Posted: Tue 21 Feb 2012, 18:23 Post subject:

sunburnt wrote:

jpeps; Why do you say this? In what manner is Puppy better? Boot options?

Quote:

The present system is light years ahead of something like TC.

I haven't been there in a while, but I was referring to it's propensity for boot failures related to installed apps.

jemimah wrote:

But you can get a list of aliases from /root/.packages/PKGS_MANAGEMENT.

doesn't help at all

jemimah wrote:

I think the builtins are that way because it takes less space. Don't like it? Fix it.

thanks, very helpful. I could do my own distro too, but that's not what this thread is about. How much extra space does using a specific file name take ....geez..

jpeps

Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 3219

Posted: Tue 21 Feb 2012, 22:50 Post subject:

This seems to do pretty well, although I'm still not clear whether it's the correct package. I didn't see any alsa-lib specs in woof

Code:

#!/bin/sh

OLD_IFS="${IFS}"
IFS="|"

cd /root/.packages

var2=`cat woof-installed-packages |egrep ".*\|${1}*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*\|.*"`
if [ ! "$var2" ]; then
var=`cat woof-installed-packages | grep ${1}`
for i in $var; do
var=`echo "$i" | grep "^${1}" | grep "-" | grep -v "\-dev" | grep -v "\.deb"`
[ "$var" ] || var=`echo "$i" | grep "^lib${1}" | grep "_" | grep -v "\-dev" | grep -v "\.deb"`
if [ "$var" ]; then
spec=`cat woof-installed-packages | grep "$var"`
name=`echo $spec | cut -d' ' -f1`
name=`echo $name | grep $var`
if [ "$name" ]; then
echo "$spec"
break
fi

fi
done

else
echo "$var2"
fi

IFS="${OLD_IFS}"

jpeps

Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 3219

Posted: Wed 22 Feb 2012, 01:35 Post subject:

A file with all the builtin and matching woof names with pet.spec files is all of 80K, 24K compressed

builtin-specs.png
Description
Filesize	18.71 KB
Viewed	480 Time(s)

disciple

Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 6378
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Posted: Wed 22 Feb 2012, 05:37 Post subject:

Quote:

Frugal installs are far less prone to corruption and viruses ( but not perfect ).

What, are people having problems with full installs? Or do you just mean in theory?
I don't see how they would be any less prone... maybe easier to recover from.
_________________
DEATH TO SPREADSHEETS
- - -
Classic Puppy quotes
- - -
Beware the demented serfers!

2byte

Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 357

Posted: Wed 22 Feb 2012, 11:40 Post subject: The State of Package Management

jemimah wrote:

For reference:

Code:

Just one example --

Perl pet specs from /root/.packages/woof-installed-packages, truncated.

Code:

Insn't that odd, they are listed twice and the duplicates are identical....

From the 'pkgname' field in the above pet specs, duplicates ignored
perl_5.10.1
perl-base_5.10.1
perl-modules_5.10.1

Code:

# ls ~/.packages/builtin_files | grep perl
libperl
perl-digest-sha1
perl-html-parser
perl_tiny
#

um, 3 .deb pkgs, 4 file lists in builtin_files. None match, nor do any match on the 'nameonly' field.
What files did perl-base_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb provide?
Which ones came from perl_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_i386.deb, or perl-modules_5.10.1-8ubuntu2_all.deb?

[musing]
I wonder what will happen if I make a pet and upgrade perl to the newer full version, then decide to uninstall it.
I want to take a shot at compiling a new kernel. Barry says you need a full install to do that.
Hmm, what packages are already in my devx.... Which files belong to those ... this app looks interesting, I wonder if it will I break anything if I compile & install it...
[/musing]
.
_________________

jemimah

Joined: 26 Aug 2009
Posts: 4309
Location: Tampa, FL

Posted: Wed 22 Feb 2012, 11:47 Post subject: Re: The State of Package Management

2byte wrote:

jemimah wrote:

For reference:

Code:

Just one example --

Perl pet specs from /root/.packages/woof-installed-packages, truncated.

Code:

Insn't that odd, they are listed twice and the duplicates are identical....

Perhaps you should report this type of thing as a bug - you never know, it might get fixed.

2byte

Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 357

Posted: Wed 22 Feb 2012, 12:48 Post subject:

Jemimah! Facetious obtuseness? You? Laughing

_________________

jemimah

Joined: 26 Aug 2009
Posts: 4309
Location: Tampa, FL

Posted: Wed 22 Feb 2012, 13:33 Post subject:

Nope, I'm serious. That's bizarre - there's definitely a bug somewhere.

Page 10 of 15 [222 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

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

[ Time: 0.1151s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0072s) ][ GZIP on ]