VanillaDpup 9.3.x

[bert07]

I read that @d-pupp asked for a download link on top of the page. So:

Download page for the latest 9.3.x series is

https://vanilla-dpup.github.io/

---

I installed (frugal) the 9.3.1 (x64) version without the 9.2.x savefolder.
Everything went well. No issues here. New savefolder for 9.3.x
I use NotecasePro (registered) on every system I use. Also installed okay.
Firefox and Palemoon: I just use the tarballs and unpack them to the /opt folder. Also no problem.
So far so good.
Keep it going.
Thanks!

[bert07]

I do have one question though: why does my Firefox runs as spot and not as root, what i expected it to do?

[dimkr]

@bert07 Firefox is pre-configured to run as spot, to give you extra security. You can disable that using setup-spot firefox-esr=false.

In addition, some applications are automatically configured to run as spot (https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/w ... nusd.c#L15) if you put their executable under /usr/bin, and you can avoid triggering this mechanism if you put your executable in /usr/local/bin. This mechanism makes these applications "just work" when you install them using apt. (These are mostly browsers, applications that refuse to run as root and applications that insult or warn the user when they run as root.)

[Tahrbaby]

Probably already been mentioned and I know its not good practice anyway but I noticed that my 9.2 savefolder will not load at boot in 9.3?
Was only an experiment but is this the case?

[dimkr]

As stated, 9.3.x is incompatible with 9.2.x save files.

[Feek]

VanillaDpup64 9.3.3
In ROX-Filer I see small square characters on folder icons and also on some text files. These seem to be items that have changed (eg during system initialization).
I only noticed this later after creating the save folder and making some changes. I wasn't sure if I had broken something, so I rebooted with pfix=ram (see image).
I don't know what that could mean. I did not encounter this in version 9.2.x.

[dimkr]

Thanks @Feek, this is probably a bug in ROX-Filer. For some reason it thinks files have extended attributes, and this seems to happen with overlay. I'll see why this happens.

EDIT: yes, bug in ROX-Filer. Will fix soon, in time for 9.3.4.

[bert07]

Startred up okay; Have yet still to check.
No problems dus far

[Clarity]

viewtopic.php?p=77938#p77938
This symbol on file icon occurs in PUPs-FATDOG when you have a PUP client writing files to a SAMBA server. The ROX on the server will display the file with that icon versus files created by the local server PC do not show such.

Asked about this on the FATDOG forum thread several years ago, IIRC.

It does NOT affect file behavior nor contents of the file. Its a merely a designation that it was not created locally on this PC.

Hope this news is helpful

[don570]

I spotted a spelling error...

screenshot-vanilla.png (13.97 KiB) Viewed 11640 times

[Feek]

(version 9.3.4)
It's great that lightweight apps for basic functionality are gradually being included .

Deadbeef player plays various audio formats, except mp3. Is it a configuration thing or something is missing?

The mpv player plays well (including mp3). When I try to bring up the control panel by hovering over the playing video, nothing happens. Is it a configuration thing?

[dimkr]

@Feek Probably a missing plugin. I'll take a look.

EDIT: yes, missing plugin. libsndfile1 in bookworm depends on libmpg123 and deadbeef's mp3 plugin is enabled when the latter is present. This doesn't happen with bullseye's older libsndfile1, so explicitly adding libmpg123 to the build (https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/woof-CE/pull/3836) should fix this issue.

EDIT 2: https://github.com/puppylinux-woof-CE/woof-CE/pull/3837 should enable the missing UI elements in mpv.

[d-pupp]

This is my first post
First I would like to thank dimkr for this version of puppy. I just up graded to 9.3.3
I am not new to puppy. Have been using it for years. However cups was always preinstalled so now I have a question.
I have installed cups and my print driver from Brother (that was fun) I had to force it on from the command line.
My question is I can not do a print preview because it is missing a pdf viewer.
Is a pdf viewer in the pipe and will that solve my problem or do I need to install cup-pdf?
I have tried apt-get install cups-pdf it can't find it.
Thanks for your help

[dimkr]

@d-pupp No PDF viewer is preinstalled because Firefox already has its internal PDF viewer. Regarding PDF printing, try to install printer-driver-cups-pdf.

[d-pupp]

Hi dimkr
Thanks for getting back so fast.
I was just logging back on to update. I got the cups-pdf printer installed. It was just a typo missed the s in cups. It didn't resolve the problem. When I click print preview I get a information window Configure default apps

I was thinking like you and added a link in "open with" to Firefox and that works great for viewing pdf's

I'll try installing a default viewer and let you know.

[d-pupp]

Sorry newbe

[d-pupp]

OK That worked
I installed evince 61 MB. It installed a lot of lib files but I do have print preview now.

[dimkr]

9.3.5 is out and it addresses many user requests and bug reports. 9.3.x starts to look like a solid replacement for its predecessors.

One fix didn't do what it was supposed to do (it fixed a problem, but not the problem I tried to fix) and 9.3.6 (due next week) will correct this.

[d-pupp]

Thank you
I was waiting for 9.3.5 it has a lot of fixes I'm looking for. I have a lot of mp3s
I will update tomorrow and let you know if I have any issues.

[retiredt00]

Dear dimkr
I tried 9.2 and 9.3 for a little while in an old i5 laptop and I was wondering if there any other difference beyond the elimination of AUFS from the 9.3.X kernel
To test, I run 9.3.5 with the 9.2.34 vmlinuz, kbuild and zdrv (renamed to 9.3.5) and everything worked perfectly!
It even loaded and updated (a copy of) the 9.2.34 savefile without a problem!
Interestingly, when the original 9.3.5 kernel files were loaded with that savefile, nothing dramatic happened!
Was loaded but ignored (because of the wrong structure I assume). the upper and work directories were generated and everything looked OK from then on.
So I was wondering if 9.2.X will be maintained or fully replaced by 9.3.X.
If is to be replaced, a tool to copy user settings and programs from 9.2 version would be very useful for a smooth transition.
Thanks again for your efforts

[Feek]

So I was wondering if 9.2.X will be maintained or fully replaced by 9.3.X.
If is to be replaced, a tool to copy user settings and programs from 9.2 version would be very useful for a smooth transition.
Thanks again for your efforts

I consider version 9.2.x to be stable and continue to use it even though I know it is no longer getting new features. The weekly builds including updates seem to be up and running for now.

At the same time, I'm also discovering version 9.3.x. For some setups, I simply access the 9.2.x save folder in Rox-filer from running session of version 9.3.x. Then I copy what is needed and save the changes.

[dimkr]

It even loaded and updated (a copy of) the 9.2.34 savefile without a problem!

I don't recommend update to 9.3.x with an existing save file because whiteouts work differently when using overlay. As long as you don't delete things from the main SFS, the upgrade should be mostly safe. (You will need to create /upper first, though). I just don't want to recommend something that can lead to confusion or data loss.

So I was wondering if 9.2.X will be maintained or fully replaced by 9.3.X.
If is to be replaced, a tool to copy user settings and programs from 9.2 version would be very useful for a smooth transition.

Yes, the 9.2.x build pipeline will be disabled soon, when the amount of user requests and known issues in 9.3.x stabilizes. I can't fix all issues and bugs, because software is never perfect, but at least, I can wait for the right moment for this transition. 9.3.x already includes some fixes that are not trivial to backport to 9.2.x, and in many ways, it's more stable and a much better distro.

I really want to sunset 9.2.x because 9.3.x is more future-proof: it won't die when aufs support for 5.10.x dies. It can coexist nicely with 10.0.x, as long as Debian 11 receives updates, and it will be a great option for those looking for a smaller and lighter dpup. Also, 9.3.x is built from the same woof-CE branch used in 10.0.x development builds, so once 9.2.x is dead, I won't have to maintain two separate branches for the Debian 11 based 9.x.y and the Debian 12 based 10.0.x.

I have no plans to write a migration tool: I have too much on my plate.

[d-pupp]

Upgraded to 9.3.5. Everything is work well.
This is a nice sold little puppy.

One thing to report. Abiword has no spell check. Not even a greyed out menu option in the tools menu,
I checked aspell is installed

Edit
Only parts of aspell are installed the program will not run.

[dimkr]

Spell checking support in abiword is disabled to reduce size, the dictionaries are quite big. I'll see if I can enable spell checking support without a big increase in size, as abiword is already one of the biggest applications in the ISO.

[Airdale]

I have noticed some unusual behavior when trying to change themes in 9.3.5

When switching themes in 9.2.x I get the following dialog box, which is what I would expect:

themes9.2x.png (205.84 KiB) Viewed 10332 times

However, when trying to change themes in 9.3.5, I get at least four windows open at once:

themes93x.png (199.71 KiB) Viewed 10332 times

Not sure if this is a bug or intended behavior.

[dimkr]

@Airdale Yes, 9.3.x switches from ptheme to the old 4.x era tools. The former has various bugs and limitations, and conflicts with alternatives like JWMDesk. Ideally, I'd like to have a separate button for each of these configuration tools, and maybe I'll do that in the future.

[Feek]

double post - deleted

[Burunduk]

Code: Select all

~$ whoami
root
~$ 

Why "$" for root?

This or this line in the debian _00build.conf sets the variable PROMPT: PROMPT='PS1="\w\$ "'
It seems the intention is to set PS1 to \w\$ literally but a backslash inside "" is special too.
The 3builddistro then runs echo $PROMPT > etc/profile.d/ps1.sh and produces probably the world's shortest shell script with a bug.
ps1.sh sets PS1 to \w$ instead of \w\$ (where "\w" means working directory; "\$" is "#" for the user root and "$" otherwise).

Wouldn't it be better to escape that backslash?

Code: Select all

PROMPT='PS1="\w\\$ "'
# or without double quotes:
PROMPT=PS1=\''\w\$ '\'

[dimkr]

@Burunduk The $ is intentional. Many online tutorials show screenshots of terminals and all distros except Puppy have $ there, because you're not running as root. A # there looks less familiar

[Burunduk]

Sorry, the backslash confused me. PROMPT='PS1="\w$ "' would be enough in this situation.

The $ is intentional. Many online tutorials show screenshots of terminals and all distros except Puppy have $ there, because you're not running as root. A # there looks less familiar

I can hardly understand the logic behind this. Other distros except (this) puppy will also show the "#" prompt when I'm actually running as root. As well as Fossapup will show "$":

Code: Select all

root# su spot
spot$

Intentional? I think this prompt is misleading. Then it would be better to use an entirely different string to indicate that it's not going to change with the user. With a prompt such a familiar, can users expect a command they've blindly copied from an online tutorial to work? systemctl? yum? or maybe sudo? This sudo tutorial says: "After successful login, the $ prompt would change to # to indicate that you logged in as root user on Ubuntu." On Ubuntu, not on (hopefully only this) Puppy. Doesn't it introduce a bit of unfamiliarity?

OK, it's your distro. I've installed it only to see how the overlayfs is implemented in puppy. I wasn't about to hamper the development.