Keepass 2.x and Mono

If you are looking for a specific 64-bit package and you can't find it in any of the 64-bit repos, please post a request for it here
Post Reply
User avatar
Ed_P
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 3154
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 22:12
Distribution: Cinnamon 3.2.2 64-bit ISO
Location: Western NY, USA

Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#1 by Ed_P » 24 Jul 2014, 05:20

Keepass 2 will run on Linux systems, via a thing named Mono. http://keepass.info/help/v2/setup.html#mono Does anyone have a x86_64 module version of this for Porteus? USM doesn't show it.
Ed

User avatar
phhpro
Full of knowledge
Full of knowledge
Posts: 545
Joined: 10 Nov 2013, 20:35
Distribution: .

Re: Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#2 by phhpro » 05 Dec 2014, 00:25

...
Last edited by phhpro on 04 Feb 2016, 02:12, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ed_P
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 3154
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 22:12
Distribution: Cinnamon 3.2.2 64-bit ISO
Location: Western NY, USA

Re: Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#3 by Ed_P » 05 Dec 2014, 06:18

Thanks phhpro but at 250MB I think I will pass at this point. That's larger than all of Porteus. :shock:
Ed

User avatar
phhpro
Full of knowledge
Full of knowledge
Posts: 545
Joined: 10 Nov 2013, 20:35
Distribution: .

Re: Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#4 by phhpro » 05 Dec 2014, 23:35

...
Last edited by phhpro on 04 Feb 2016, 02:11, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ed_P
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 3154
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 22:12
Distribution: Cinnamon 3.2.2 64-bit ISO
Location: Western NY, USA

Re: Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#5 by Ed_P » 06 Dec 2014, 05:31

phhpro wrote:Have you considered using KeepasX instead?
That's exactly what I am using. I got it from USM before it was deleted from there. On the system that runs KeePass 2x I periodically export it's database to a KeePass 1 .kdb file which I access from here.
Ed

User avatar
phhpro
Full of knowledge
Full of knowledge
Posts: 545
Joined: 10 Nov 2013, 20:35
Distribution: .

Re: Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#6 by phhpro » 08 Dec 2014, 04:30

...
Last edited by phhpro on 04 Feb 2016, 02:11, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ed_P
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 3154
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 22:12
Distribution: Cinnamon 3.2.2 64-bit ISO
Location: Western NY, USA

Re: Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#7 by Ed_P » 08 Dec 2014, 05:32

phhpro wrote:If you are happy with kpX, why the call for mono to run kp2?
Cause then I would have 1 database between systems and both systems would always be current. While the current approach is functional there is frequently a lag between the two databases.
Ed

User avatar
phhpro
Full of knowledge
Full of knowledge
Posts: 545
Joined: 10 Nov 2013, 20:35
Distribution: .

Re: Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#8 by phhpro » 09 Dec 2014, 04:37

...
Last edited by phhpro on 04 Feb 2016, 02:10, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ed_P
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 3154
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 22:12
Distribution: Cinnamon 3.2.2 64-bit ISO
Location: Western NY, USA

Re: Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#9 by Ed_P » 11 Dec 2014, 06:16

phhpro wrote:Your approach would seem to defy logic.
Really!! I would disagree. I have two systems that work, why would I risk disturbing that? Is the scenario inconvenient, sure. Is it impossible to live with, not really. So....

:)
Ed

User avatar
Blaze
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1383
Joined: 28 Dec 2010, 11:31
Distribution: ⟰ Porteus 3.2 Cinnamon x86_64
Location: ☭ Russian Federation, Lipetsk region, Dankov
Contact:

Re: Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#10 by Blaze » 11 Dec 2014, 15:43

Linux porteus 4.12.7-porteus #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 13 17:38:30 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6600K CPU @ 3.50GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
MS-7A12 » [AMD/ATI] Tobago PRO [Radeon R7 360 / R9 360 OEM] (rev 81) » Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 K2 3200MHz C16

User avatar
Ed_P
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 3154
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 22:12
Distribution: Cinnamon 3.2.2 64-bit ISO
Location: Western NY, USA

Re: Keepass 2.x and Mono

Post#11 by Ed_P » 12 Dec 2014, 04:43

Thanks Blaze, I'll check them out. I assume you mean to test them individually rather than add all of them. :)
Ed

Post Reply