Woof at Github

A home for all kinds of Puppy related projects
Message
Author
User avatar
mavrothal
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon 24 Aug 2009, 18:23

#181 Post by mavrothal »

If the woof-CE slacko64 mailing list is not sufficient for slacko64(-pre-alpha), may I suggest a "slacko64 unofficial" thread till Mick announces it in the forum? :wink:
== [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
Billtoo
Posts: 3720
Joined: Tue 07 Apr 2009, 13:47
Location: Ontario Canada

#182 Post by Billtoo »

mavrothal wrote:If the woof-CE slacko64 mailing list is not sufficient for slacko64(-pre-alpha), may I suggest a "slacko64 unofficial" thread till Mick announces it in the forum? :wink:
I saw the post by James and then the item in the screenshot, guess you need to change the "testers welcome" part?
Attachments
slacko64news.jpg
(32.82 KiB) Downloaded 2314 times

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

#183 Post by mavrothal »

Billtoo wrote:
mavrothal wrote:If the woof-CE slacko64 mailing list is not sufficient for slacko64(-pre-alpha), may I suggest a "slacko64 unofficial" thread till Mick announces it in the forum? :wink:
I saw the post by James and then the item in the screenshot, guess you need to change the "testers welcome" part?
I certainly do not mean to discourage any testing.
But this being a woof-CE thread is focusing on woof issues and testing woof-CE changes on specific subjects or build processes.
If every woof-CE built puppy was discussed/tested here, would be a useless mess.
Was mentioned some time back in a similar occasion.
Most important, your contribution may go unnoticed/hard-to-find here.
Both Mick and BK pointed to the woof-CE mailing list for slacko64 related discussion (as shown in your screeny too).
== [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
Ted Dog
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed 14 Sep 2005, 02:35
Location: Heart of Texas

#184 Post by Ted Dog »

please provide deltas if you are going to release every week or so..

User avatar
bigpup
Posts: 13886
Joined: Sun 11 Oct 2009, 18:15
Location: S.C. USA

#185 Post by bigpup »

Some news about JWM new release.
http://joewing.net/index.shtml
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected :shock:
YaPI(any iso installer)

User avatar
BarryK
Puppy Master
Posts: 9392
Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 09:23
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Contact:

#186 Post by BarryK »

[url]https://bkhome.org/news/[/url]

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

#187 Post by mavrothal »

After 1000+ commits and over 40000+ lines of code changed, the first woof-CE release is in beta stage.
Please test hard :D
== [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

#188 Post by mavrothal »

After 941original commits and 59.916 lines of code changes in woof-CE since forking from Barry's Fossil, the first official woof-CE-based puppy, Slacko-5.7, is out :D

Thanks to Zigbert has a brand-new, puppy-only, look while countless under the hood changes assure the wide hardware compatibility, the great out-of-the-box functionality and the minimal size that Puppy is known for, at its best.

Give it a try.
== [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
mikeslr
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon 16 Jun 2008, 21:20
Location: 500 seconds from Sol

Communications

#189 Post by mikeslr »

mavrothal wrote:If the woof-CE slacko64 mailing list is not sufficient for slacko64(-pre-alpha), may I suggest a "slacko64 unofficial" thread till Mick announces it in the forum? :wink:
Sometimes my intuition tosses up practical ideas. http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 508#753508.

mikesLr

User avatar
oldyeller
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 15 Nov 2011, 14:26
Location: Alaska

#190 Post by oldyeller »

Hi,
I just wanted to know how big is the master-zip suppose to be?

Cheers

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

#191 Post by mavrothal »

oldyeller wrote:Hi,
I just wanted to know how big is the master-zip suppose to be?

Cheers
24 MB
== [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
oldyeller
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 15 Nov 2011, 14:26
Location: Alaska

#192 Post by oldyeller »

mavrothal wrote:
oldyeller wrote:Hi,
I just wanted to know how big is the master-zip suppose to be?

Cheers
24 MB
Thanks, I thought that was the size.

Cheers

Ibidem
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed 26 May 2010, 03:31
Location: State of Jefferson

#193 Post by Ibidem »

Any idea what it would take to do an Alpine (alpinelinux.org) pup?

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#194 Post by 01micko »

Ibidem wrote:Any idea what it would take to do an Alpine (alpinelinux.org) pup?
Well, the way things are going, I'm a little excited by jamesbond's idea. Not because it's Ubuntu but because it could really be adapted to any package management system. So, if you figure out the requirements (which don't seem too hard) any distro can be the parent but still have the wholesome puppy goodness.

simargl${n} pointed out on numerous occasions (really kicking us in the guts about it) that old PPM is poor (he described it in other ways, but you get the drift). FWIW he was right, (still, doesn't mean I like you though simargl! :P . You have the people skills of a dinosaur). It would certainly be beyond the capability of the developer base here to extend good ol' PPM to perfection for every distro that woof supports.

Any help to you?
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

jamesbond
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007, 05:02
Location: The Blue Marble

#195 Post by jamesbond »

01micko wrote:
Ibidem wrote:Any idea what it would take to do an Alpine (alpinelinux.org) pup?
Well, the way things are going, I'm a little excited by jamesbond's idea. Not because it's Ubuntu but because it could really be adapted to any package management system. So, if you figure out the requirements (which don't seem too hard) any distro can be the parent but still have the wholesome puppy goodness.
That's the idea. As for Alpine linux specifically seems to use its own package manager (apk-tools) - we will need to look at what an .apk file actually is; and whether apk-tools can install to a chroot. If it does, then it should be possible to do so - although alpine linux probably misses a lot of the usual binaries that puppy depends on, and must be heavily modified to work correctly.
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]

Ibidem
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed 26 May 2010, 03:31
Location: State of Jefferson

#196 Post by Ibidem »

jamesbond wrote:
01micko wrote:
Ibidem wrote:Any idea what it would take to do an Alpine (alpinelinux.org) pup?
Well, the way things are going, I'm a little excited by jamesbond's idea. Not because it's Ubuntu but because it could really be adapted to any package management system. So, if you figure out the requirements (which don't seem too hard) any distro can be the parent but still have the wholesome puppy goodness.
That's the idea. As for Alpine linux specifically seems to use its own package manager (apk-tools) - we will need to look at what an .apk file actually is; and whether apk-tools can install to a chroot. If it does, then it should be possible to do so - although alpine linux probably misses a lot of the usual binaries that puppy depends on, and must be heavily modified to work correctly.
Sorry to be so long replying; I've been running mainly Alpine for a little while.
.apk format:
tar.gz containing .SIGN.*.*; .PKGINFO; and the unprefixed installation
preinstallation script is ".pre-install", if present; post-install and post-upgrade are similar.
There's also a .trigger script, and possibly other scripts allowed.
.trigger is called with a list of files after each 'apk' run

apk: cross between apt-get and dpkg.
Available as static binary--'apk-tools-static' is the package, sbin/apk.static is the binary.
Supports install to alternate "root" directory, via -p/--root option.
See http://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Instal ... n_a_chroot for the chroot install documentation; note that you will need to adjust versions and architectures.

Now, packages:
alpine-base is the boot part, alpine-sdk is ~ devx, but there's no X or udev by default.
You will almost certainly want to add testing/. The "setup-xorg" script takes care of installing X but not a terminal or WM; use

Code: Select all

apk add  xf86-input-synaptics jwm rxvt-unicode icewm cups cups-filters ghostscript ttf-freefont
to get it working more like a Puppy system and add printing.
xfce is the typical DE.
fluxbox is available.
firefox and midori are the main GUI browsers; sylpheed, pcmanfm, geany, Abiword, and Gnumeric are available.
mhwaveedit, mtpaint, and rox are not.
networking will call for network-extras (bridge, vlan, and wireless support).

User avatar
peebee
Posts: 4370
Joined: Sun 21 Sep 2008, 12:31
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Contact:

Query re new savefolders

#197 Post by peebee »

Hi

There is a significant difference between the contents of /etc/mtab when comparing between Slacko5.7 (with savefile), Slacko5.9.3 (with savefile) and Slacko5.9.3 (with savefolder) in that

Slacko5.9.3 (with savefolder) has 2 entries for /dev/sdxn where sdxn is the boot device/partition. see 3rd section below

This difference is causing problems with pup-volume-monitor (I think).

Is this a deliberate / intended / explainable difference?

Thanks
peebee

/etc/mtab from Slacko5.7 (savefile) booted from sda1:
rootfs / rootfs rw,relatime 0 0
/dev/sda1 /initrd/mnt/dev_save fuseblk rw,noatime,user_id=0,group_id=0,default_permissions,blksize=4096 0 0
/dev/loop1 /initrd/pup_rw ext2 rw,sync,noatime,errors=continue,user_xattr,acl 0 0
tmpfs /initrd/mnt/tmpfs tmpfs rw,relatime,size=160104k 0 0
/dev/loop0 /initrd/pup_ro2 squashfs ro,noatime 0 0
unionfs / aufs rw,relatime,si=4ef255b5 0 0
tmpfs /tmp tmpfs rw,relatime,size=843448k 0 0
none /proc proc rw,relatime 0 0
none /dev/pts devpts rw,relatime,gid=2,mode=620 0 0
none /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0
shmfs /dev/shm tmpfs rw,relatime,size=714728k 0 0
/etc/mtab from Slacko5.9.3 (savefile) booted from sdb2:
rootfs / rootfs rw,relatime 0 0
/dev/sdb2 /initrd/mnt/dev_save ext4 rw,noatime,data=ordered 0 0
/dev/loop1 /initrd/pup_rw ext2 rw,noatime,errors=continue,user_xattr,acl 0 0
tmpfs /initrd/mnt/tmpfs tmpfs rw,relatime,size=140152k 0 0
/dev/loop0 /initrd/pup_ro2 squashfs ro,noatime 0 0
tmpfs /initrd/mnt/tmpfs4 tmpfs rw,relatime,size=27268k 0 0
/dev/loop4 /initrd/pup_z squashfs ro,noatime 0 0
unionfs / aufs rw,relatime,si=7483c233 0 0
tmpfs /tmp tmpfs rw,relatime,size=842940k 0 0
devtmpfs /dev devtmpfs rw,relatime,size=1684992k,nr_inodes=217934,mode=755 0 0
none /proc proc rw,relatime 0 0
none /dev/pts devpts rw,relatime,gid=2,mode=620 0 0
none /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0
shmfs /dev/shm tmpfs rw,relatime,size=751744k 0 0
/etc/mtab from Slacko5.9.3 (savefolder) booted from sdb2:
rootfs / rootfs rw,relatime 0 0
/dev/sdb2 /initrd/mnt/dev_save ext4 rw,noatime,data=ordered 0 0
/dev/sdb2 /initrd/pup_rw ext4 rw,noatime,data=ordered 0 0
tmpfs /initrd/mnt/tmpfs tmpfs rw,relatime,size=140152k 0 0
/dev/loop0 /initrd/pup_ro2 squashfs ro,noatime 0 0
tmpfs /initrd/mnt/tmpfs4 tmpfs rw,relatime,size=27268k 0 0
/dev/loop4 /initrd/pup_z squashfs ro,noatime 0 0
unionfs / aufs rw,relatime,si=dfffd93c 0 0
tmpfs /tmp tmpfs rw,relatime,size=842940k 0 0
devtmpfs /dev devtmpfs rw,relatime,size=1684992k,nr_inodes=217934,mode=755 0 0
none /proc proc rw,relatime 0 0
none /dev/pts devpts rw,relatime,gid=2,mode=620 0 0
none /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0
shmfs /dev/shm tmpfs rw,relatime,size=752836k 0 0
ImageLxPup = Puppy + LXDE
Main version used daily: LxPupSc; Assembler of UPups, ScPup & ScPup64, LxPup, LxPupSc & LxPupSc64

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

Re: Query re new savefolders

#198 Post by mavrothal »

peebee wrote:Hi

There is a significant difference between the contents of /etc/mtab when comparing between Slacko5.7 (with savefile), Slacko5.9.3 (with savefile) and Slacko5.9.3 (with savefolder) in that

Slacko5.9.3 (with savefolder) has 2 entries for /dev/sdxn where sdxn is the boot device/partition. see 3rd section below

This difference is causing problems with pup-volume-monitor (I think).

Is this a deliberate / intended / explainable difference?
The way that savefolder is mounted (mount -o bind) generates this.
A lot of puppy mounting utilities have code to compensate for this.
Pup-volume-monitor needs similar code to cope with this "anomaly"
== [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
zigbert
Posts: 6621
Joined: Wed 29 Mar 2006, 18:13
Location: Valåmoen, Norway
Contact:

#199 Post by zigbert »

A suggestion to consider...
I am working with pDesktop. - A mini desktop environment based on JWM, ROX (and GTK).

As code are put into it, the package becomes more complex. This is not a good solution for a community (I plan to release things when my initial work is done). What is seen in Slacko 6 is just a teaser.

To avoid one big pack, I suggest we open one branch in Woof-CE. That way, we can separate parts of pDesktop - ie pTheme, JwmConfig, pNote, Rox-rightclick, iconswither, gtk-themes, ... - And still consider the branch like one piece (strictly dependent of each other). Integration is the only reason to me to work with this.
- Easier to dive into, and still keep the integration that I insist on.
- Easier to skip extended parts that Puppy-builder doesn't want.
- Easier to fork the work for another DE-opinion.
- Possible to add more additional graphics and themes.

I know, I have previous come up with ideas regarding this topic, and never done something about it. - And we never know what this ends like, but I feel this is a better idea than my previous when it comes to the disagreement on flexibility contra integration.

Does this sound reasonable?


Sigmund

User avatar
technosaurus
Posts: 4853
Joined: Mon 19 May 2008, 01:24
Location: Blue Springs, MO
Contact:

#200 Post by technosaurus »

since most of your projects are contained to a specific directory, I would recommend starting it as a separate project (see my post in cutting-edge) and then using git's submodule in woof to include your project at that directory. This would allow you to work from your working copy.... really all active projects should be using submodule. You can also just create a branch to re-merge later but that makes it more difficult for other projects to use it.
Check out my [url=https://github.com/technosaurus]github repositories[/url]. I may eventually get around to updating my [url=http://bashismal.blogspot.com]blogspot[/url].

Post Reply