Does Puppy need a package manager?

[costal martignier]

ohh, cool...

something for the upcoming real packagemanager

just a question, are ther plans to realize a real packagemanager for puppy?
i saw something about a .pet extension, is someone investigating in this project?

perhaps i'm interessted to contribute to such a project after my webenvironment project is finished..

regards
costal

[MU]

Not really.
.pet is a step to make Alien Packages more popular by adding 3 things:

- click to install
- Menu-entries like Dotpups created with Dotpup-Wizard have
- an Online-Repository with mirrors (for use with Webbrowser and Downloader).

So it is a trial to combine features of PupGet, Alien-Package and Dotpup.
As this implies stricter rules than Dotpups have, they shall not make Dotpups useless; they just shall replace those, that already act more or less as alien Packages (those created with the dotpup-wizard for example).

Dependency-handling would require an additional script, maybe replacing parts of PupGet.
As that is not trivial, it is not part of .pet yet.

But feel free to investigate in that (seriously meant).

Search the forum for pet for Details, the plans are quite new, so there are not many threads yet.

Mark

[costal martignier]

yup, perhaps i do this, because from my very first minutes with puppy i mssed a real packagemanager..

since kernel 2.2 i'm a big big fan of debian for server AND for desktop use
(yes i was a little bit hatdcore the early days

and since there is ubuntu i us this nice debianbased distri on my desktops and debian on the servers...

and without apt-egt i'm feeling really naked
pupget and dotpup are a really nice idea, and it works really well, but it's noting for real packagemanagment...

yes i think i will investigate in that after my current webserver project...
is there allready someone working in this direction?

reagrds
costal

[MU]

no, the dependency-problem is not investigated yet as far as I know.
There is just one thread suggesting XML-files for that, but no code yet. More a kind of brainstorming.
Mark

[Lobster]

This is about pupgets:
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/pget

XML is always a good idea
Everyone is using and seems happy with the .pet name (including Barry, GuestToo and MU)

There also seems efforts to make Puppy compatible with
Vector 5.0 STD, 5.1STD and Slackware 10.1 - Vector in particular we share a history with as it was used for compiling on.

If this can be clarified further all well and good

[MU]

I once read, Gnome 2 is so awfull slow, because it uses XML-files instead of a registry with binary (compressed) files.

I don't know if it is true.
But I find XML somewhat suspicious, people often seem to use it, because it is "hype".

Instead
<category>Texteditors</category>
<name>nano</name>

You could write a simple textfile like it is used by many windowmanagers for example:
#start
Texteditors
nano
#end

This is just ~ 1/3 of the XML-code.

If you have huge databases, it can be a difference, if you have to parse 3 MB XML or 1 MB text.

Also the XML requires slow String-functions to cut the values, while the textfile can use fast Integer-iteration to count through the entrys.

Mark

[costal martignier]

yes, youre absolutley right...

xml is really massivley overhead for parsing AND writing

xml is only good when you really need to exchange data and you don't know with what you need to share data

if there is no need to exchange data with unknown software, there is no need for xml.

there ar emany many other mutch faster and mutch smaller exchange and/or storageformats...


rgeards
costal

[GuestToo]

XML is always a good idea

i hate editing those [expletive] AppInfo.xml files in Rox appdirs

i think xml is an extremely inefficient storage format

pupget and dotpup are a really nice idea, and it works really well, but it's noting for real packagemanagment...

the dotpup system is, and was intended to be, a super-simple installer ... it was not intended to be a package manager, although it would be easy to make package management tools and functions available for package creators to use (and without even needing the dotpup handler program to be changed)

from my very first minutes with puppy i mssed a real packagemanager..

Puppy is not a Linux clone like hundreds of other distros ... i am not sure that Puppy needs a package manager/repository at all ... it might be useful, it might be good ... or not

i have been using Puppy for quite a while, and have never felt the need for a package manager

i also do not feel a strong need to adhere to rigid "standards" ... for example, i think Gobo Linux has interesting and practical ideas ... and ZeroInstall is interesting too

of course, 99% of a package manager is the packages ... if Puppy had apt-get built in, many of the deb packages in the Debian repositories would not work properly in Puppy, because Puppy is not Debian or a Debian clone ... a repository would have to be set up and packages created and uploaded to the repository

i do think that Puppy is not ideal for everyone ... and i suspect that some people might be happier running Ubantu or maybe a Knoppix DVD than Puppy anyway

[GuestToo]

As this implies stricter rules than Dotpups have, they shall not make Dotpups useless; they just shall replace those, that already act more or less as alien Packages

i did not intend for dotpups to compete with pupget packages anyway ... if there is a pupget package already, there is not much point in the effort of duplicating the package

[costal martignier]

sorry, but why should we not have a real packagemanger?

at the moment you find some packe here some package there, there is a old version from the package in another site a newer...

i like puppy, and it's ok that puppy goes it's one way.
but i think it's a little bit chaotic with these to packageformats, why not create on packageformat that is really easy for enduser and for developers. i dont see the reasen for two formats..

it would be really nice if i can install a packege and get informed when there is a new version of it, or i can uninstall a package with or without its coniguration files...
it would be simpler to find packages, no need to search packages in this sloooow forum, just a little gui where we can search ALL packges available...

i don't see one reasen to not have a real packagemanager...

regards
costal

[puppian]

where we can search ALL packges available...

How about this?
It's quite new and you won't find all packages there, we need someone to help developing it (so if you have created a package for pupppy, create a torrent and upload it there! and don't forget to seed it too ). Btw to search for all torrents in a certain category, choose that category from the drop down menu and press the 'search' button (no need to enter anything in the search box).

Other tracker sites like http://linuxtracker.org has done a good job in archieving most Linux distributions.

And this is a nice link:
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=5448&

[Lobster]

Interesting what MU and GuestToo say about XML
So XML not required


What seems to be required by end users is
a list of programs
click on the program and it is installed

So part of the .pet is a depository and mirrors
Because at the moment we have packages all over the place

MU I know is working towards this and Babbs and TedDog will perhaps be able to mirror?

So perhaps rather than using XML we can have a parsable (if there is such a word) template that goes with each program

Something like this:

Name of Program
Autozen

Name of file
Autozen.pup

Size
35k

Download Sites

Website

Author Contact Info

Packaged for Puppy by
Lobster

Package Date (Day:Month:Year)
28:1:2006

So each file would be a
autozen.pet
and a autozen.txt

So now we have a file
info on that file and where a package manager needs to look . . .

Is that the sort of way forward?

[costal martignier]

don't forgett the dependencies

regards
costal

[Flash]

Lobster, perhaps you should add "Description (in plain simple language)" to your parsable template. In fact, a template, or at least some example(s), of a description might even be necessary.

[Lobster]

OK - something like:

Code: Select all

Name of Program
Fish Catcher

Short Description
Catches battered Cod, kippers and anchiovies

Long Description (up to 10 lines)
Automated fish catcher using underwater robot interface
Suitable for fish lovers everywhere
Catches battered Cod, kippers and anchiovies
Plugins to create Pizza available

Name of file
Fish_for_Tux.pup

Size
35k

Dependencies
libc++

Puppy Download Sites

Website of original package
www.fish.com

Original Author Contact Info
Tux the Penguin

Packaged for Puppy by (any or all:  authors name, email, URL)
Lobster,Lobster@puppylinux.org

Package Creation Date (Day:Month:Year)
28:1:2006

Screenshot URL
www.puppylinux.org/user/photogallery.php?photo=45

[Mathiasdm]

Add an options: conflicting packages.
This is always possible.