Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-discuss
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2008-04-17 13:22:32
|
Quoting Serge Leschinsky <fi...@in...>: > Bruce Smith wrote: > >> It looks for the saved config, can't find any, asks if I want to >> continue without a config, I answer "y", and then it says: >> >> !!! Devil-Linux CD-ROM not found !!! >> Please check your Hardware! >> Booting will NOT continue, you have to reset to try again >> > I have done a quick check for bb 1.9.2 and it works for my boxes - intel and > nvidia sata. I'll checked it in ASAP ( a little modification of the > build script > is required ). I think you forgot to upload it to the ftp server. ;-) -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2008-04-17 13:30:48
|
Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > I think you forgot to upload it to the ftp server. ;-) > A-a-a-a-a-a!!!!!! You are right. My bad, I completely forgot about it. Will be done in a minute. -- Serge |
|
From: Dick M. <di...@li...> - 2008-04-09 21:22:25
|
Bruce, >>>>> unionfs is a part of DL 1.3 > I like the idea, but I've never used unionfs. The docs for unionfs seem > to be kind of scarce. Can you post some examples of how you use it? yes it's a bit obscure. (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7714). Reading around apparently unionfs has a poor reliability reputation. There's a fork call aufs which does the same only more stable, faster etc etc. (http://aufs.sourceforge.net/). That's actually what I'm using on my desktop. > If I understand your suggestion before, the /etc directory would be > un-tar'ed on the CD. Then a unionfs in memory would be a branch above > it and all the additions/changes are made there? Yes, exactly. The /shm/etc/would be a union of itself and the etc-default. You do it like this: mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/shm/etc:/etc-default=ro none /shm/etc (note: substitute aufs for unionfs above if you choose that). Magically etc-default appears in /shm/etc and you can edit and delete file as well as add new ones. I.e untar your own config files into it. > How do we modify save-config to only save the changes in the upper > modified branch? That's the tricky bit - problem with above config is you'd have to umount etc-default to be able to see just the difference files. Not so good. You could have 2 directories: /etc-default and /shm/etc-admin and mount like this: mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/shm/etc-admin:/etc-default=ro none /shm/etc Then /shm/etc would look as above but you can also see just the admin changes in etc-admin. That might be better. > Can we just save that directory? (I need to play with > unionfs, except it's not included in my 1.3 either :) both unionfs and aufs are std in Debian if you've got a deb desktop. > Another advantage of doing this is the size of the config file saved to > the floppy/usb would be a LOT smaller! Yes indeed. Dick |
|
From: Dick M. <di...@li...> - 2008-04-10 07:36:13
|
Dick Middleton wrote: > Bruce, > >>>>>> unionfs is a part of DL 1.3 > You do it like this: > You could have 2 directories: /etc-default and /shm/etc-admin and mount like this: > > mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/shm/etc-admin:/etc-default=ro none /shm/etc A better way is if /etc is the default in rom and /shm/etc-admin is the user's changes: mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/shm/etc-admin:/etc=ro none /etc That way you don't have the default in shm and you can always access etc-admin directly for save and restore. Last night I was a bit fixated on keeping the link /etc->/shm/etc. Dick |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-10 13:47:59
|
We should probably move this thread to the develop list. :-) Dick, I looked and you don't appear to be subscribed to that list. Can I get you to sign up so we can move this thread? https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop (and anyone else who's interested in DL development is welcome too!) - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2008-04-10 12:40:14
|
My worry about using unionfs is giving a possible intruder the option to 'overwrite' files. I have to admit I really don't know much about unionfs/aufs, but we need to make sure we keep at least the same level of security. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-10 12:48:34
|
> My worry about using unionfs is giving a possible intruder the option > to 'overwrite' files. > I have to admit I really don't know much about unionfs/aufs, but we > need to make sure we keep at least the same level of security. At the moment I'm only talking about making the change to /etc. All the changes would still be in memory, so we're not really losing any security, or doing anything different in that sense. It may be a problem if we start using it for the read-only filesystem on the CD (i.e. /usr). I'm not sure we should do that either. If a user wants to manually set that up for themselves, that's their problem. We can't force people to keep their system secure. - BS |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-10 13:25:13
|
> both unionfs and aufs are std in Debian if you've got a deb desktop. What's the difference between unionfs & aufs? Does DL have aufs? Which one should we use for this? - BS |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2008-04-17 08:00:41
|
Bruce Smith wrote: > It looks for the saved config, can't find any, asks if I want to > continue without a config, I answer "y", and then it says: > > !!! Devil-Linux CD-ROM not found !!! > Please check your Hardware! > Booting will NOT continue, you have to reset to try again > I have done a quick check for bb 1.9.2 and it works for my boxes - intel and nvidia sata. I'll checked it in ASAP ( a little modification of the build script is required ). -- Sincerely, Serge |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-17 12:47:58
|
> > It looks for the saved config, can't find any, asks if I want to > > continue without a config, I answer "y", and then it says: > > > > !!! Devil-Linux CD-ROM not found !!! > > Please check your Hardware! > > Booting will NOT continue, you have to reset to try again > > > I have done a quick check for bb 1.9.2 and it works for my boxes - intel and > nvidia sata. I'll checked it in ASAP ( a little modification of the build script > is required ). Do you want me to test this one on my SATA CDROM system? Is there a good shortcut to get the changes in my ISO? i.e. After updating src & cvs, can I manually untar busybox, run scripts/build.sh to build & install it, then "make clean install iso"? Or should I start over with a new lFS & make mrproper? - BS |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2008-04-17 12:57:54
|
Bruce Smith wrote: > Do you want me to test this one on my SATA CDROM system? Yes, it would be grate. > > Is there a good shortcut to get the changes in my ISO? i.e. > After updating src & cvs, can I manually untar busybox, run > scripts/build.sh to build & install it, then "make clean install iso"? > > Or should I start over with a new lFS & make mrproper? No-no. Just rebuild busybox (manual untar to /tmp dir, remove .done_build_busybox, then "build.sh build opt=busybox") and copy it to tmp/ISO/initrdtree/sbin (rewrite old one). Then recreate iso, i.e. "rm tmp/.done_iso_build-iso && make iso". Thank you, -- Serge |
|
From: Serge L. <fi...@in...> - 2008-04-17 13:00:29
|
Serge Leschinsky wrote: > Bruce Smith wrote: > >> Do you want me to test this one on my SATA CDROM system? > Yes, it would be grate. great Too hurry to be accurate. Sorry. -- Serge |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2008-04-17 12:54:52
|
Quoting Bruce Smith <bw...@ar...>: >> > It looks for the saved config, can't find any, asks if I want to >> > continue without a config, I answer "y", and then it says: >> > >> > !!! Devil-Linux CD-ROM not found !!! >> > Please check your Hardware! >> > Booting will NOT continue, you have to reset to try again >> > >> I have done a quick check for bb 1.9.2 and it works for my boxes - intel and >> nvidia sata. I'll checked it in ASAP ( a little modification of the >> build script >> is required ). > > Do you want me to test this one on my SATA CDROM system? > > Is there a good shortcut to get the changes in my ISO? i.e. > After updating src & cvs, can I manually untar busybox, run > scripts/build.sh to build & install it, then "make clean install iso"? > > Or should I start over with a new lFS & make mrproper? rm -rf tmp/busybox* untar the new one into tmp/ rm tmp/.done*busybox make clean makefile You guys may not know about "make makefile", it's a little faster and supports the parallel compile of several scripts at the same time. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-17 14:14:46
|
> rm -rf tmp/busybox* > untar the new one into tmp/ > rm tmp/.done*busybox > make clean makefile > > You guys may not know about "make makefile", it's a little faster and > supports the parallel compile of several scripts at the same time. Where else do you use "make makefile"? Do you use it after a make mrproper? (how?) Do you use it for a "DL_IS_OFFICIAL_RELEASE"? (how?) - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2008-04-17 14:27:07
|
"make makefile" only takes care of build, install and iso. Yes you can use it for the official release, but I would set it to compile only 1 script at the time. Sometimes it doesn't behave right, depending how many you do in parallel. This fine for test compiles, but not for production. If it fails, just run "make makefile" again and it usually works. I use this on my dual core box: CONFIG_PARALLEL_JOBS=4 3 may be better, but I like stressing the box. ;-) -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org Quoting Bruce Smith <bw...@ar...>: >> rm -rf tmp/busybox* >> untar the new one into tmp/ >> rm tmp/.done*busybox >> make clean makefile >> >> You guys may not know about "make makefile", it's a little faster and >> supports the parallel compile of several scripts at the same time. > > Where else do you use "make makefile"? > Do you use it after a make mrproper? (how?) > Do you use it for a "DL_IS_OFFICIAL_RELEASE"? (how?) > > - BS > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference > Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. > Use priority code J8TL2D2. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2008-04-17 15:36:19
|
> "make makefile" only takes care of build, install and iso. > Yes you can use it for the official release, but I would set it to > compile only 1 script at the time. Sometimes it doesn't behave right, > depending how many you do in parallel. This fine for test compiles, > but not for production. If it fails, just run "make makefile" again > and it usually works. > I use this on my dual core box: > CONFIG_PARALLEL_JOBS=4 > > 3 may be better, but I like stressing the box. ;-) CONFIG_PARALLEL_JOBS is only used by "make makefile" ? And is ignored by "make build install" ? - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2008-04-17 19:05:20
|
I could be wrong of course, but I think that's the case. -- Regards Heiko Zuerker http://www.devil-linux.org Quoting Bruce Smith <bw...@ar...>: >> "make makefile" only takes care of build, install and iso. >> Yes you can use it for the official release, but I would set it to >> compile only 1 script at the time. Sometimes it doesn't behave right, >> depending how many you do in parallel. This fine for test compiles, >> but not for production. If it fails, just run "make makefile" again >> and it usually works. >> I use this on my dual core box: >> CONFIG_PARALLEL_JOBS=4 >> >> 3 may be better, but I like stressing the box. ;-) > > CONFIG_PARALLEL_JOBS is only used by "make makefile" ? > And is ignored by "make build install" ? > > - BS > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference > Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. > Use priority code J8TL2D2. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone > _______________________________________________ > Devil-linux-discuss mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
