Page 5 of 189
Posted: Tue 29 Nov 2011, 23:08
by scsijon
jemimah wrote:
It looks pretty similar to galculator to me. Is there some reason why it's better?
I couldn't find one, when I was trying dozens of apps out for qtpuppy, stuck galculator in as the 'standard'.
EDIT:
galculator's main features include
Algebraic mode, RPN (Reverse Polish Notation), Formula Entry mode and Paper mode
decimal, hexadecimal, octal and binary number base
radiant, degree and grad support
arithmetic precedence
Basic and Scientific Mode
user defined constants
user defined functions
Other features are
trigonometric functions
power, square root
natural and common logarithm
inverse and hyperbolic functions
memory functions
logical operations
display RPN stack
preferences dialog/configuration file
display modules
X pasting
i18n
configurable variable type in HEX/BIN/OCT mode
thousands separator
Not sure if we need anything else, but the group is open to additional sugestions.
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 00:00
by ggg
Deleted - as duplicated point made above,
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 00:02
by jemimah
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 01:01
by jemimah
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 02:02
by jemimah
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 02:29
by ttuuxxx
Last time I compiled evince it was 50% smaller than yours you compiled above back in march and also I included comic,pdf,impress
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 950#505950
I don't see a need to compile Orbit statically this just add extra weight. On 2.14x I have orbit just built as shared, and it works fine, It could be the reason why gcalctool segfaults for you in financial mode and works fine in 2.14X. Orbit is only about 400kb expanded in 2.14X, Oh also you don't need the latest Gconf or Orbit to compile the latest apps, they don't usually check for version numbers, When I compiled the latest evince back in march this year my Gconf/Orbit was over 2 yrs old, Like everything else if you can get away with a stable older version usually its a go to save file size, 2.14x has libgconf-2.so.4.1.5 <--191kb expanded and libORBit-2.so.0.1.0 <--306kb expanded
ttuuxxx
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 04:03
by aarf
if i can venture my toe onto this hallowed turf.
if you have racy as a base, then adding/click installing
lupify slacko pet from playdayz will take you in leap and bounds towards where you want to be
Synaptics
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 05:23
by mavrothal
Another thing that might need a second look besides unionfs, in the Racy base is the synaptics Xorg module.
I do not know if it is a T2 or a particular configuration/compile issue but if you try to force a fall-back to PS2 mode in a _supported_ device, it crashes. The fall-back can be useful if synaptics does not work well with a particular hardware and puppies like Lupu and Slacko can handle it fine. Racy does not
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 15:50
by jemimah
ttuuxxx wrote:
Last time I compiled evince it was 50% smaller than yours you compiled above back in march and also I included comic,pdf,impress
Yes, djvu is huge. I think we can split the plugins into separate pets but I don't see a need at this point. (I did find a couple of libs I forgot to strip - saved a few kb, I've uploaded the new version.)
ttuuxxx wrote:
I don't see a need to compile Orbit statically this just add extra weight.
It's smaller to compiler statically if you just have one prog that needs a particular dependency, because unneeded bits of the dep are not included and you don't need to export the symbols. The only reason to compile dynamically is to avoid redundancy if you have many programs that depend on a particular library.. Static compilation also speeds up program load times, saves the user from having to hunt down compatible libs, and you can upx the resulting big executables which tends to be better compression than what you get from gzip or SFS.
ttuuxxx wrote:
Like everything else if you can get away with a stable older version usually its a go to save file size, 2.14x has libgconf-2.so.4.1.5 <--191kb expanded and libORBit-2.so.0.1.0 <--306kb expanded
ttuuxxx
I hesitate to mix and match really old programs with really new ones since the developers never test this combo. I do remember having problems compiling with my old version of dbus in fluppy - I think it was bluetooth that complained about it. I'm just not that worried about a few KB.
Re: Synaptics
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 15:55
by jemimah
mavrothal wrote:Another thing that might need a second look besides unionfs, in the Racy base is the synaptics Xorg module.
I do not know if it is a T2 or a particular configuration/compile issue but if you try to force a fall-back to PS2 mode in a _supported_ device, it crashes. The fall-back can be useful if synaptics does not work well with a particular hardware and puppies like Lupu and Slacko can handle it fine. Racy does not
Is there a thread about this?
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 16:16
by DPUP5520
Tried it out last night, I gotta say I really like it, I couldn't get Firefox working it threw "cannot load xpcom" and it has the same problem as Racy with giving errors when moving or copying files between ntfs partitions and Puppy or doing anything else in an ntfs partition (compiling, uncompressing files, etc)
Re: Synaptics
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 16:39
by mavrothal
jemimah wrote:mavrothal wrote:Another thing that might need a second look besides unionfs, in the Racy base is the synaptics Xorg module.
I do not know if it is a T2 or a particular configuration/compile issue but if you try to force a fall-back to PS2 mode in a _supported_ device, it crashes. The fall-back can be useful if synaptics does not work well with a particular hardware and puppies like Lupu and Slacko can handle it fine. Racy does not
Is there a thread about this?
Not that I know of. Just my observations while building different
pups for the XOs.
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 18:16
by jemimah
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 18:29
by ttuuxxx
Here's my Blue-moon icon theme, I spent a few hours updating it to the newer icon theme setter system Barry changed.
ttuuxxx
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 18:41
by ttuuxxx
jemimah wrote:
It's smaller to compiler statically if you just have one prog that needs a particular dependency, because unneeded bits of the dep are not included and you don't need to export the symbols. The only reason to compile dynamically is to avoid redundancy if you have many programs that depend on a particular library.. Static compilation also speeds up program load times, saves the user from having to hunt down compatible libs, and you can upx the resulting big executables which tends to be better compression than what you get from gzip or SFS.
Listen jemimah I'm no idiot when it comes to compiling, I don't need a lesson on compiling statically, If anything compiling statically is known to have stability issues sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes.
I also wasn't talking about using an older dbus, I was only talking about gconf and orbit.
Plus if we go with evince, gcalctool, metacity that would be 3 apps using Orbit and so having a static orbit would be just bloat and also you never posted your static Orbit-dev.pet package.
ttuuxxx
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 19:44
by jemimah
The only thing that needs orbit is gconf. There will only ever be one copy of orbit. You can delete all the orbit headers and libs and everything will still compile (which is why there's no orbit DEV package - you don't need it).
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 19:51
by ttuuxxx
Here's a very small tetris game, and it even keeps a high score, not bad for the size.
ttuuxxx
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 19:55
by ttuuxxx
jemimah wrote:The only thing that needs orbit is gconf. There will only ever be one copy of orbit. You can delete all the orbit headers and libs and everything will still compile (which is why there's no orbit DEV package - you don't need it).
what about Bonobo and cobra?
ttuuxxx
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 19:57
by jemimah
ttuuxxx wrote:jemimah wrote:The only thing that needs orbit is gconf. There will only ever be one copy of orbit. You can delete all the orbit headers and libs and everything will still compile (which is why there's no orbit DEV package - you don't need it).
what about Bonobo and cobra?
ttuuxxx
I haven't used either of those for anything yet. GConf didn't ask for them.
Posted: Wed 30 Nov 2011, 20:07
by ttuuxxx
jemimah wrote:ttuuxxx wrote:jemimah wrote:The only thing that needs orbit is gconf. There will only ever be one copy of orbit. You can delete all the orbit headers and libs and everything will still compile (which is why there's no orbit DEV package - you don't need it).
what about Bonobo and cobra?
ttuuxxx
I haven't used either of those for anything yet. GConf didn't ask for them.
Have you ever used metacity? That also needs orbit, I installed your gconf and had this error when I tried to compile it.
Maybe it might compile if I had your orbit headers. grrrr
configure: error: Package requirements (gtk+-2.0 >= 2.20.0 pango >= 1.2.0 gconf-2.0 >= 1.2.0 libcanberra-gtk libstartup-notification-1.0 >= 0.7 xcomposite >= 0.2 xfixes xrender xdamage xcursor) were not met:
Package ORBit-2.0 was not found in the pkg-config search path.
Perhaps you should add the directory containing `ORBit-2.0.pc'
to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable
Package 'ORBit-2.0', required by 'gconf', not found
Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you
installed software in a non-standard prefix.
Alternatively, you may set the environment variables METACITY_CFLAGS
and METACITY_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config.
See the pkg-config man page for more details.
ttuuxxx