woof-CE
woof-CE copied to clipboard
puppylinux-woof-CE
Quickpet
@mrfricks and others
Today, this utility is one means of providing "hot-fixes" to FossaPUP users.
As it may extend, in the future, to other PUPs, should it be a part of overall WoofCE? OR, should it have its own GIT for its extension(s)/development? OR, should it be a FossaPUP64 forum only utility?
Wondering on its merits and where to direct its offerings.
Quickpet has been in every Puppy version 666philb has produced, from Tahrpup to Fossapup64 9.5 Yes, it is very easy to use and I wish others would use it, in there Puppy versions. However, the people producing the other Puppy versions, would have to be willing to produce the fix files, that Quickpet uses and provide the pet packages, that it provides. It would be their version of Quickpet for there Puppy version. Here is the repository of Quickpet: http://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/puppy-tahr/quickpet/
I suggest you contact 666philb, about how this could be used, by any Puppy version.
Quickpet has been in every Puppy version 666philb has produced, from Tahrpup to Fossapup64 9.5 Yes, it is very easy to use and I wish others would use it, in there Puppy versions. However, the people producing the other Puppy versions, would have to be willing to produce the fix files, that Quickpet uses and provide the pet packages, that it provides. It would be their version of Quickpet for there Puppy version. Here is the repository of Quickpet: http://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/puppy-tahr/quickpet/
I suggest you contact 666philb, about how Quickpet could be used, by any Puppy version. What they would need to do, to make fix files, for their Puppy version.
However, the people producing the other Puppy versions, would have to be willing to produce the fix files, that Quickpet uses and provide the pet packages, that it provides. It would be their version of Quickpet for there Puppy version.
- this would be a large amount of work.
- the Quickpet "fix files" have to be applied on every new instance of the os and end up stored in the savefolder/savefile.
- a much better approach IMHO is to reissue the .sfs with the changes permanently incorporated. This approach is easy to automate reducing developer workload!
I would suggest a third option, use the "ydrv" as a "patch" layer. So instead of a ".delta" for a whole ".iso", only need a ".delta" for the "ydrv", or a complete new "ydrv".
I would suggest a third option, use the "ydrv" as a "patch" layer
Nice idea - but I struggle to see how it could be automated given the available tools - also would mean ydrv could not be used for other things - maybe a pdrv is needed? (+ bdrv etc.)