Archpup 13.2 info

Puppy related raves and general interest that doesn't fit anywhere else
Message
Author
rameshiyer

Re: Pet package Installation

#31 Post by rameshiyer »

mavrothal wrote:
rameshiyer wrote: I have tried to install some of the PET after installing your pet installer. However, showing error, hence not installed anything through your application.
The truncate version af Archpup 13.2 is incompatible with find_cat.
Try version 0.3 above.
Install with "-Uf" so will overwrite the original /usr/bin/truncate file
I have used latest version only. May be due to other problem in my installation. Not displaying detailed error report.

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

Re: Pet package Installation

#32 Post by mavrothal »

rameshiyer wrote:
mavrothal wrote:
rameshiyer wrote: I have tried to install some of the PET after installing your pet installer. However, showing error, hence not installed anything through your application.
The truncate version af Archpup 13.2 is incompatible with find_cat.
Try version 0.3 above.
Install with "-Uf" so will overwrite the original /usr/bin/truncate file
I have used latest version only. May be due to other problem in my installation. Not displaying detailed error report.
If you do not get a "fail to install" dialog then it is a problem with your installation.
If you do, re-download and install the latest version (now v 0.4; does not need to be installed with the -f option)
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

rameshiyer

#33 Post by rameshiyer »

I got following message while trying to install pupmessaging-0.1-1-1-i686. Actually any problem? Shall I go head with installation of Arch-Pup for installing PET file on Archpup.


[root@archpup Downloads]# pacman -U pupmessaging-0.1-1-i686.pkg.tar.xz
loading packages...
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Targets (1): pupmessaging-0.1-1

Total Installed Size: 0.03 MiB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y
(1/1) checking package integrity [----------------------] 100%
(1/1) loading package files [----------------------] 100%
(1/1) checking for file conflicts [----------------------] 100%
(1/1) checking available disk space [----------------------] 100%
(1/1) installing pupmessaging [----------------------] 100%
warning: directory permissions differ on usr/
filesystem: 777 package: 755
warning: directory permissions differ on usr/bin/
filesystem: 777 package: 755
error: command failed to execute correctly

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#34 Post by mavrothal »

rameshiyer wrote:I got following message while trying to install pupmessaging-0.1-1-1-i686. Actually any problem?
Not really.
Is just a symlink in the install script. I'll see to it but does not affect anything.
Latter: Fixed now. Thx

However, your filesystem should NOT be 777 :shock:
What is the output of the "ls -l /" command?
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

rameshiyer

Archpupy 13.2

#35 Post by rameshiyer »

[root@archpup ~]# ls -l /
total 84
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 1305 Feb 1 2013 bin
drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 20480 Jan 19 09:24 dev
drwxr-xr-x 76 root root 4096 Jan 19 09:24 etc
drwxr-xr-x 31 root root 4096 Jan 29 2013 initrd
drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 4096 Jan 30 2013 lib
drwx------ 2 root root 16384 Jan 30 2013 lost+found
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 29 2013 mnt
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 32 Feb 1 2013 opt
dr-xr-xr-x 119 root root 0 Jan 20 2013 proc
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 25 2013 pup_new
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 25 2013 pup_ro1
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 25 2013 pup_rw
drwxrwxrwx 27 root root 4096 Jan 19 09:29 root
drwxrwxrwx 12 root root 4096 Jan 19 09:25 run
drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4096 Jan 21 2013 sbin
dr-xr-xr-x 12 root root 0 Jan 19 09:24 sys
drwxrwxrwt 7 root root 320 Jan 19 09:27 tmp
drwxrwxrwx 34 root root 4096 Jan 30 2013 usr
drwxrwxrwx 23 root root 4096 Jan 30 2013 var

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#36 Post by mavrothal »

wrong post
Last edited by mavrothal on Wed 13 Feb 2013, 12:45, edited 10 times in total.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

Re: Archpupy 13.2

#37 Post by mavrothal »

rameshiyer wrote: drwxrwxrwx 27 root root 4096 Jan 19 09:29 root
drwxrwxrwx 12 root root 4096 Jan 19 09:25 run
drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4096 Jan 21 2013 sbin
dr-xr-xr-x 12 root root 0 Jan 19 09:24 sys
drwxrwxrwt 7 root root 320 Jan 19 09:27 tmp
drwxrwxrwx 34 root root 4096 Jan 30 2013 usr
drwxrwxrwx 23 root root 4096 Jan 30 2013 var
You installation is messed up (or hacked...).
Only /tmp should be "drwxrwxrwt" or "drwxrwxrwx".
Wipe it and start afresh
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

rameshiyer

Archpupy 13.2

#38 Post by rameshiyer »

i don't know what went wrong. Anyway I will reinstall with 13.2.1 after release.

rameshiyer

pet-to-arch(pup) converter

#39 Post by rameshiyer »

mavrothal wrote:.

So now you can either use petmanager_archpup to install a pet for yourself or pet2arch to install it for yourself and pass it to the others :lol:
Give it a try.
I would like to inform you that now I am able to install PET file through "petmanager-archpup". I got installed PeasyPDFv2.3 got through today's Barry's blog2 announcement. This PasyPDFv2.3 is very very small. Only 3.00KB !!. However function wise very BIG. This type of program is required for Archpuppy, so that we can maintain the size of the ISO as desired by us. Mavrothal Thanks. Keep it up. PeasyPDF link is given below for your consideration
http://distro.ibiblio.org/quirky/pet_pa ... df-2.3.pet

However, no menu entry is created while installing through ArchPet Manager. How to make menu entry. I hope, I can make shortcut for PeasyPDF in xface provided by Stiffing.

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

Re: pet-to-arch(pup) converter

#40 Post by mavrothal »

rameshiyer wrote:This type of program is required for Archpuppy, so that we can maintain the size of the ISO as desired
I can only try to get the horse to the water but I can certainly not force it to drink :P
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

User avatar
rg66
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon 23 Jul 2012, 05:53
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada / Entebbe, Uganda Africa!?!

#41 Post by rg66 »

I'm trying to get pet2arch to work but keep getting

==> ERROR: PKGBUILD does not exist.
X-slacko-5b1 - X-tahr-2.0 - X-precise-2.4
[url=http://smokey01.com/rg66/]X-series repo[/url]

User avatar
rcrsn51
Posts: 13096
Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 13:50
Location: Stratford, Ontario

Re: pet-to-arch(pup) converter

#42 Post by rcrsn51 »

rameshiyer wrote: I got installed PeasyPDFv2.3 got through today's Barry's blog2 announcement.
PeasyPDF requires Ghostscript and I notice that ArchPup does not have it.

How did you get Ghostscript? By installing some printing components?

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#43 Post by mavrothal »

rg66 wrote:I'm trying to get pet2arch to work but keep getting

==> ERROR: PKGBUILD does not exist.
Just downloaded and tried again. Works file.
Are you running it on Archpup or any other puppy?
It requires to run in Archpup and /usr/share/pacman/PKGBUILD.proto to be present.
I guess I'll put some more checks and warnings
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

simargl8

Re: pet-to-arch(pup) converter

#44 Post by simargl8 »

mavrothal wrote:I can only try to get the horse to the water but I can certainly not force it to drink
wtf?!
And really I can't see point in converting pet package to pkg.tar.xz and installing it with pacman.
Why is that required? Who needs pet packages anyway?
Converting packages from other distribution makes sense for small distro like Slitaz
because it lacks some applications in its repository, like the ones based on gnome or kde.
Why is so hard so make proper PKGBUILD?
Looks like Puppy linux users like to invent their own rules, strange and funny ones.
Example: pet package is the only file installation format in linux world, that lacks basic thing like
information about 'what options are used in package building process'.
Next, why breaking standard desktop specifications, inventing new menu categories like Games suddenly
becomes _Fun, Office -> Personal?! etc.
rameshiyer wrote:I got installed PeasyPDFv2.3 got through today's Barry's blog2 announcement.
This PasyPDFv2.3 is very very small. Only 3.00KB !!.
Small doesn't always means the best. Take usability in your equation..
PS. Sorry for lousy English. And, sorry if you're sensitive enough and this hurts you in any way.

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

Re: pet-to-arch(pup) converter

#45 Post by mavrothal »

simargl8 wrote:
mavrothal wrote:I can only try to get the horse to the water but I can certainly not force it to drink
wtf?!
And really I can't see point in converting pet package to pkg.tar.xz and installing it with pacman.
Why is that required? Who needs pet packages anyway?
As I said, I can only try to get the horse to the water...

Now if we play the "Who needs" game, then why Arch is not good enough and we need Archpup, and why Debian or Fedora is not good enough and we need Arch, and why...?
You see where this ends?

But if you want to be more specific, some people for example may not see any serious advantage just having good old Arch running in RAM. At the end of the day they may think is just as slow or as fast, as big or as small as the original and just more buggy.

Now regarding puppy packages, yes there is a lot of junk around, but no other distro does so much, in so many ways, in so many different types of hardware, so easily and so fast, at under 150MB. This should tell you something about some puppy packages at least.

Hopefully, your English is good enough to understand that I'm not trying to hurt your fillings. I'm just pointing out a different line of thinking.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

simargl8

#46 Post by simargl8 »

No, no, you didn't understand what was my point, with Slitaz as example.
Archlinux has support for 46000 packages when you take AUR in count.
All packages (or, I'm guessing 99%) from Puppy linux repository are in Arch
repos. My question is why waste time for converting those 1% and not write
real PKGBUILD that will compile them from source.
OR, we could make our own repository and ADD those missing packages.

I'm afraid otherwise there will be too much file conflicts, wrong permissions as
someone before mentioned. And I firmly believe that pet is poor package format,
for many reasons, it's just my opinion but with good arguments.

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#47 Post by mavrothal »

But the packages you pick for inclusion are mostly gtkdialg front end bash script that usually conflict with nothing and can offer the functionality of the 70MB Gnome panel in few KB.
It is actually all the "P-apps" that make puppy so fast and functional. This and some nice compiling when things from the compatible distro become "heavy".
That's the pets you want, not glibc.

pet2arch offers the ability to include them and still have pacman keep track of everything.
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

Re: pet-to-arch(pup) converter

#48 Post by stifiling »

mavrothal wrote:Now if we play the "Who needs" game, then why Arch is not good enough and we need Archpup
ArchPup is 6 times smaller than Arch Linux. ArchPup runs on an NTFS partition. ArchPup is easier to install than Arch Linux. USB booting Arch Linux is just as hard as compiling XBMC is on Puppy.

these are a few reason why "Just install normal Arch Linux" is 'not' the answer.

Same goes for puppy. "Just install normal Puppy Linux".....normal Puppy Linux is a mile behind, in a 100 yard dash against ArchPup. Arch Linux is also losing that same race, just as badly.

User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#49 Post by mavrothal »

I like your enthusiasm stifiling, but I'm really impressed by the magic.

Here is an Arch package.
Abra katabra.
The pachage is 6 times smaller, runs 3 times as fast and does twice as many things as the original!
Wow!
:P
== [url=http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html]Here is how to solve your[/url] [url=https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html]Linux problems fast[/url] ==

stifiling
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 30 Dec 2007, 03:56

#50 Post by stifiling »

mavrothal wrote:I like your enthusiasm stifiling, but I'm really impressed by the magic.

Here is an Arch package.
Abra katabra.
The pachage is 6 times smaller, runs 3 times as fast and does twice as many things as the original!
Wow!
:P
Sounds like you don't have a valid rebuttal.

You said, "Just install Arch Linux" 3 times already. Gave you a few reasons why that should be eliminated from your arsenal of excuses.

See if you can think of something different. "Just install Arch Linux" doesn't apply. Please do not use "Just install Arch Linux" in comparison to ArchPup. Arch Linux is just as crappy to ArchPup, as Puppy Linux is to ArchPup. "Just install Arch Linux".....doesn't work. X that one off the list.

Locked