Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Hello Fatdog team,

There is a new version of Xfe, 2.0, with new features and improvements. A version 2.0.x is due out soon with bug fixes, but I put this here for now. The attached item is just the recipe in its directory for use with the Fatdog native package build system. I noted in the recipe that the root user fix does not seem to work, as (if I am perceiving it correctly) a config file is created at first run that overrides the changes made by the installation package.

I hope it is useful.

Dan

dr__Dan wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:56 am

Hello Fatdog team,

There is a new version of Xfe, 2.0, with new features and improvements. A version 2.0.x is due out soon with bug fixes, but I put this here for now. The attached item is just the recipe in its directory for use with the Fatdog native package build system. I noted in the recipe that the root user fix does not seem to work, as (if I am perceiving it correctly) a config file is created at first run that overrides the changes made by the installation package.

I hope it is useful.

Dan

Wow. I don't use fatdog, but I use Xfe a lot. I never expected a version 2!

@geo_c, have you looked at Roland's Xfe site? He describes the improvements there.

Dan

@dr__Dan, thank you. I don't use Xfe but I know users who do. They will be happy.

It's great for you to provide a recipe file. I used it to update the xfe package in the Fatdog64 repo (update still unpublished). I fixed the issue you reported, and also the SLACKREQ version tag. The correct format is describe here https://web.archive.org/web/20241203045 ... /plain/FAQ.

Recipe attached.

Thank you, @step, for the continuing education. Summarizing from the document you linked to and the Fatdog examples, any programs listed for SLACKREQ have to be named with the same exact name as their package name, OR in the format of 'program name' followed by a condition (=, >=, =<, <, or >) followed by the rest of the standard package format: 'version-architecture-build number', with each condition-qualified program name on its own line, and everything beginning with SLACKREQ to the final program name enclosed in single quotes.

I'll try to submit some more packages soon.

Dan

dr__Dan wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 5:02 am

...any programs listed for SLACKREQ have to be named with the same exact name as their package name, OR in the format of 'program name' followed by a condition (=, >=, =<, <, or >) followed by the rest of the standard package format: 'version-architecture-build number', with each condition-qualified program name on its own line, and everything beginning with SLACKREQ to the final program name enclosed in single quotes.

Let's see how these rules fit together. SLACKREQ is just a pkgbuild variable. Its content is copied verbatim to the in-package "slack-req" file that gives rise to the summary data Gslapt will use to resolve package dependencies. So, think of $SLACKREQ as providing a block of lines inside a configuration file (slack-req). Suppose package X version 1.0 depends on package Y version 2.0, and Y includes some libraries and a significant amount of optional data. One way to package could be: X-1.0-x86_64-1, Y-2.0-x86_64-1 , Y-2.0-all-1 -- splitting Y's libraries and data into two separate packages because the data are optional. This example motivates the reason why no less than the entire version-architecture-buildnum string is needed to express package dependency conditions.

@step, I think I understand the point you are making. For clarification, are you saying that all packages need to have the full name, or only ones that require version precision? Most of the SLACKREQ lines in the recipes in the /source subdirectory use only the name.

The recipe for ifuse (which I think you most recently updated) is one that does have multiple calls for specific versions of dependencies, which I will update as part of the continued testing there.

Dan

@dr__Dan only slack-req lines that include =, >=, =<, <, or > need the -version-arch-buildnum part.

Thanks @step.

@step, here is the recipe for xfe-2.0.1. I hope I have it correct. If I don't, I value your review and correction.

Thanks to all the Fatdog team.

Dan

edit-

Don't use the recipe I attached, it is faulty. Use the official version from the Fatdog repository.

@dr__Dan thank you, see your PM.