(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Here we go again,
"I want xxx browser!"
"i want xxx office suite!"
etc, etc, etc,

Barry, Build it any damn way you want and ignore the complaints.

You've done some great work with the latest woof improvements and it would be a shame if only those people who can figure out woof can get the benefit. Release puppy 4.3.2 and the other developers can incorporate it into their projects along with the changes they have in mind.

Don't be shy, GO FOR IT!

jrb wrote:Here we go again,
"I want xxx browser!"
"i want xxx office suite!"
etc, etc, etc,

Barry, Build it any damn way you want and ignore the complaints.

You've done some great work with the latest woof improvements and it would be a shame if only those people who can figure out woof can get the benefit. Release puppy 4.3.2 and the other developers can incorporate it into their projects along with the changes they have in mind.

Don't be shy, GO FOR IT!

Well said! I dont think this thread was entitled 'What do you want in 4.3.2'

If we're talking about a 4.3.2, then it's bug fixes and application updates. If we want different or additional applications, that's 4.5.

What's wrong with 4.3.1 anyway? Except for trying out the new woof based puppies, 4.3.1 is the one that I actually use.

gerry

Agree with you gerry, Puppy IS mainly:
Seamonkey
Abiword
Gnumeric
Gxine
Rox

So, any discussion about changing this architecture in this topic is out of place. That said however, I think that in a 4.32 there can be enough place for applications, libs, kernel updates (although Barry says kernel won't change), bug fixes AND little improvements/changing: as I said in a previous post, and also ttuxxx mentioned this in Barry's blog, apps like transmission, lxtask (or htop), galculator, viewnior/gpicview, are nothing radically new, rather a better (for me) way to do each task with only one app, so I think they should be considered. And, last but not least, also ROX should be updated, since the one shipped in 4.31 has problems with image thumbnails, some pics I take with my Nikon camera aren't shown...I upgraded it to 2.9.0 and it works fine...
Otherwise I agree with you, we can stay with 4.31

4.3.2 is a good idea. It's good, because it fills the gap between 4.3.1 and 5.0, but I think it should be nothing but a minor release, so people don't get too crazy about it.

All the 4.x packages are ancient, 4.3.2 could be some temporary solution until 5.0 comes out, with an updated backend.

I started working on some project of mine, sort of a personal T2-like thing. It needs only Bash and some stuff found in devx

I use it for Rabbit Linux, my own distro, if I get tired from working on it, maybe I'll use to create a Puppy too ... it just needs a name, because it doesn't rely on T2 or a distro ... and if the Debian-based Puppy is dpup, my one should be .... ?pup

viewnior/gpicview

Pardon, viewnior is already in 4.3.1.....

Many Puplets &c. have my fullest appreciation; however, Barry's original is still preferred for everyday use here. Seeing what happened since 1.0.8 (my first Puppy), it's obvious that the creator of Puppy can only make things work better, and would never act for the sheer sake of updating, novelty etc.

In other words, both Puppy 4.3.2 by BK and 4.4 by Technosaurus will be welcome to me, and with deep gratitude. It appears that Puppy's strongest competitor is Puppy itself...

eden6000 wrote:

viewnior/gpicview

Pardon, viewnior is already in 4.3.1.....

yes but the newer version that 4&5 series doesn't have has a new feature, well for viewnior, its has a slideshow.
Makes a big difference to many. I personally am happy with the gpicview that Hairywill added slideshow to, its 1/2 the size also. but viewnior is still nice, but both apps work the same, just that one is smaller.
ttuuxxx

Yes, I know it, since I'm using your puppies 4.3.1.... and I repeat that, apart from the seamonkey>firefox switching (because it's too radical), I think your puplet has the best choice of apps, and should be a great base to work on new official puppy.

Very true, especially like that file roller you compiled for it ttuuxxx, I installed it on dpup!

I would vote YES for the 4.3.2. I think that it will make easier to test the distribution to new users and can work as a reference for the pupplets.

Barry, keep up the good work.

aragon wrote:

BarryK wrote:I did build an experimental 4.3.2 recently, which was reasonably sane. So, I could do another one then start a forum thread so we can thrash out the bugs, then it will become a gap-filler official release -- something to fill the void until 4.4 or even 5.0 comes along.

4.32 as a bugfix-release and follower of 4.31 and 4.30 would make sense to me, as this would be a model that is sometimes missing in puppy (my opinion).

4.4 will be a 'new' version, whereas 4.32 is a 'better' 4.31 that is a 'better' 4.30. squish out the bugs, incorporate woof updates make evolution. if a bugfix-release is easy to build, build it.

and if you do a bugfix-release you wont step on anyones toes...

... I agree!

Hi all

Since beginning any new puppy version are improvements!!!!

Proof it is not useless : i've built a new flexxxpup remaster from 432 unoffical and it's runnning like a charm.

http://linuxtracker.org/index.php?page= ... b244bd2b08

http://flexxxpup.blogspot.com

cheers alex

Alex where have you been hiding? Only 4 posts?

I am downloading it now and it looks very nice.

I also use 4.3.2 and am very happy with it.

Grant

http://flexxxpup.blogspot.com

Alex this is your second release?
Keep us informed Grant
(are your fellow firemen using puppy?)

I used the 4.3.2 Unofficial for a few days
- it needed a bit of polish - but certainly not much

Will a new official 4.3.2 produce a new flexxxpup?

Will a new official 4.3.2 produce a new flexxxpup?
Definitely Yes.

smokey, Lobster

Alex where have you been hiding? Only 4 posts?
I've been learning from you all how to use puppy since november 2008
remastering is like rubik's cube pleasure


Alex this is your second release?
actually my 14th i try to make them better and smaller


puppy linux help me at work to override ntfs partition and recover data,
i use it home also with joy

alex

Would I like a 432 bugfix release?

Most definitely!



As a side note, I saw it mentioned that an increase in the number of SFSs the main Puppy version can handle would be nice- at some time down the road- I don't think that 432 would be the proper time to do so, as it would just be a bugfix if released.
At any given time, I have maybe seventy packages installed in my Puppies, perhaps ten to twenty of them in excess of 25 MB, so a limit of six gets a little constricting after a while.

Barry,
If you're willing to do it, I say go for it.

So as not to confuse anyone, we are already confused.
In Cutting Edge, Lobster posted a link with feedback to Puppy 432 Experimental.
This is NOT the release Barry is trying to get feedback on making.
But it IS interesting in that he talks about making a Puppy 432 when in fact he already has used the 432 designation in that experimental version.

Now, is everyone thoroughly confused?

8-bit wrote:So as not to confuse anyone, we are already confused.
In Cutting Edge, Lobster posted a link with feedback to Puppy 432 Experimental.
This is NOT the release Barry is trying to get feedback on making.
But it IS interesting in that he talks about making a Puppy 432 when in fact he already has used the 432 designation in that experimental version.

Now, is everyone thoroughly confused?

So...is there another 432 version that has been released, or is only the experimental version.

There was another very confusing thing for me....someone announced a 431 derivative with the bugs fixed. I asked if the bug fixes were available, as I didn't need/want the extra stuff...and I was told no.

Why would bug fixes not be made available?

Strange