Posted: Thu 17 Jan 2013, 18:43
I'm surprised that nobody thought adding pet package compatibility was a good idea. If it was I would have seen at least one response to it.
READ-ONLY Archive
https://oldforum.puppylinux.com/
I have used many different pups but since I started with archpup I must say I haven't missedbark_bark_bark wrote:I'm surprised that nobody thought adding pet package compatibility was a good idea. If it was I would have seen at least one response to it.
Thanks for taking time to explain.simargl wrote: Scooby: So, thunderbird needs some libraries from folder /usr/share/firefox. This is not firefox from Arch repository, but
newer firefox (ESR), I moved its files to /usr/share/firefox and created links in /usr/lib to some libraries in that folder -
otherwise flash plugin didn't work in other browsers. I might have just added /usr/share/firefox/ to LD_LIBRARY_PATH that
seems better and cleaner solution.
Edit: I will move firefox files to /usr/lib/firefox like in Arch https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extr ... efox/files,
and add that folder to LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Converting pet to tar.gz does not make them Arch packages.bark_bark_bark wrote:I know ArchPup nativley can't use pet pkgs. But here is a tool that does allow you to use .PET pkgs.
Look for it here: Download from AUR
I agree. when i first started using archpup, i had copied all the 'puppy package manager' scripts out of a traditional puplet....and placed them inside of archpup. it worked perfectly to install pets (petget) but i never used it. i noticed that i totally didn't need it, and installing pets had a chance of breaking something.Scooby wrote:I have used many different pups but since I started with archpup I must say I haven't missed
or even thought of .pet packages.
well at times a .sfs may be a waste. I've liked green_dome's Wine .pets over Arch Linux's Wine package. Also some puppy packages are faster than the same package from another distro. I also feel that since it is a "puppy", it should be natively be able to use Puppy packages. Also pmusic only comes in .pet. pmusic IMO is the best for playing music. I think without that .pet compatibility, it is just a Arch remaster that mimics Puppy a bit.Scooby wrote:I have used many different pups but since I started with archpup I must say I haven't missed
or even thought of .pet packages.
Between pacman and sfs I feel them satisfyingly covering my needs.
Can you elaborate on a situation where you feel the need for pets are pressing?
I know that, but it allows you to use .pets thoughmavrothal wrote:Converting pet to tar.gz does not make them Arch packages.
If you want to install pets in Archpup try this tool
Is the conversion tool here- https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pet2tgz/mavrothal wrote:Converting pet to tar.gz does not make them Arch packages.bark_bark_bark wrote:I know ArchPup nativley can't use pet pkgs. But here is a tool that does allow you to use .PET pkgs.
Look for it here: Download from AUR
If you want to install pets in Archpup try this tool
yes that is the same tool that most puppies use.darkcity wrote:...the same as the one that is included in most Puppies?
this could be done. pburn is in the aur and functional on Arch Linux. pmusic is not though.darkcity wrote:On a similar if we want to bring a Puppy program to Archpup, we could make it run on Arch standard and set up a AUR page?
well if you were to get tired of answering the question, move or delete one of the adrv files. same like how you'd do if you were getting tired of being asked which save file do u want to use...mavrothal wrote:I do not know how easy this may be (and I do not intend to find out...), but I do think that is not a good idea to go through a series of Q&A to boot your machine.
(Also the current thinking is that too many options for the user to choose, actually mean that the designer has no clear idea what (s)he wants to accomplish or how to do it)
Besides, if you want to change adrv or ydrv you do not need to make up your mind at boot time.You can maybe decide a couple of minutes earlier before you hit "reboot"...
Should this work immediately after I change it or after make save file-reboot? If yes, it is not working ...simargl wrote:Hi mike delaw, and welcome
For changing keymap to slovenian I believe you should edit /root/.start and replaceCode: Select all
setxkbmap us setxkbmap si
Changing keymap, like every other addition in /root/.start will work only after restarting Xorg server. Regarding save file - you can create it whenever you like on reboot after question dialog or before, changes made during that session will be saved.mike delaw wrote: Should this work immediately after I change it or after make save file-reboot? If yes, it is not working ...
logical organization and size that we are missing more and more in Puppy excepted if the new Quirky 50 MB can help to solve both, a new start (as Slitaz 4.0 by the new developer): Slitaz did save better is wonderful size all the time and would be able to be distributed on a check card CD. Both did start with about 20 MB size! Both have the modern X.org stuff. Both can be easily remastered. Slitaz recognizes and accepts each USB-stick in ext3 automatic as save file without to have to do something... And Slitaz is completely FOSS (non free can be downloaded extra with explicit «get-something» scripts, so flashplayer, skype, etc.). and the only French language politic of Slitaz belong now to the past, the main language is now English as in all important distributions (but it was immediately a 4 language distribution as coming from Swiss ; yet as it was only 20 MB ISO!).oui wrote: I actually yet use a marvelous actual version of Slitaz (under 1 Go with full TeX live and Lyx installed (unquashed full installation! As it is also possible to remaster Slitaz exactly like Puppy, I would say it would probably produce only a 300...400 MB ISO with about all the usual Puppy scope of application PLUS the high quality text processing system ; please, it is no provocation from me: Slitaz did have big problems in the last 2 years but they are evidently solved by the new developper helping Slitaz since the 2 years! an perfect X windows, a Linux conform management of users and password excepted that user 'tux' is standard (can be changed; if changed at installations time, or after the first start under installation from a real password) that I did discover to overcome my difficulties in ArcPup. if user created at installations time, he doesn't need some password (and can do 'su' or 'sudo' without password ; 'root' does also co exist with password 'root' or other password). if created after first start, it become a full linux with full password control! what can be more flexible? a great among of applications in the 44 MB Iso of the "rolling version" (the stable version stay on ab. 30 MB Iso but is 1 year old, really old...), a really full support with an absolutely transparent organisation: www.slitaz.org, forum.slitaz.org, mirror.slitaz.org, doc.slitaz.org in a lot of languages, an automatic versions control in the doc between language versions (a real dream for not English spoken Puppy users ), a full repository with all packages from slitaz and from users, and sources for all the stuff since version 1.0 and an old as well as a full actualized new Slitaz scratch book! this are really heavy high standards for a little troupe! the installations system is an best specimen of the art using the browser as frontend (Slitaz panel with abilities to install new packages)! it is possible to bind the main partition as /home/ and create at installations time in that /home/ the user dir /home/tux properly so that you can reinstall without difficulty and changes in the main partition other as in /home/tux and never have to mount it extra! extraordinary performances from the smallest linux distro : half of ArchPup, quarter of other actual Puppy's. There is no icecat or libre kernel but my own copy of icecat works properly in it. Please, look at it to develop ArchPup as modern with an equivalent high logical organization!
I don't think good or bad are the choices. Much of .pet can be done usingbark_bark_bark wrote:I'm surprised that nobody thought adding pet package compatibility was a good idea. If it was I would have seen at least one response to it.
You are absolutely right.bark_bark_bark wrote:I think that ArchPup NEEDS .pet support. But the developer (simargl) refuses to acknowledge any of my suggestions. But still this is important to have in puppy, because it's kinda like saying that Ubuntu can't be compatible with it's own packages.
I have no intention to add pet packages support simply because they would be in collision with packagesbark_bark_bark wrote:I think that ArchPup NEEDS .pet support. But the developer (simargl) refuses to acknowledge any of my suggestions. But still this is important to have in puppy, because it's kinda like saying that Ubuntu can't be compatible with it's own packages.