sfs files and a Full install...how to??

Booting, installing, newbie
Post Reply
Message
Author
davesurrey
Posts: 1198
Joined: Tue 05 Aug 2008, 18:12
Location: UK

sfs files and a Full install...how to??

#1 Post by davesurrey »

Not sure whether this belongs in "Additional Software" or "Beginners Help"...but here goes..

I have a Full install of 412 which I want to keep and not go to frugal.
But..am trying to use some sfs files.

I have seen on this forum that with 2xx it wasn't possible to unionise these sfs files. But also I have seen that others have done this with 4XX.

Always worth experimenting so....

First I downloaded OpenOffice-3.0.sfs and placed it in /mnt/home.
It didn't show up when I went to System>BootManager>Load SFS files and gave the message:

...no SFS files in /mnt/home or wrong _nnn.sfs number....

but then I was not too surprised in a Full install.

Note that the orig file didn't have any version number affixed to it but I still got the message when I changed the file name to

OpenOffice-3.0_412.sfs.

Okay so I then found a script attributed to Dougal:


Code: Select all

modprobe squashfs 
mount -o loop filename.sfs /mnt/data 
cd /mnt/data 
cp -a * / 
cd / 
umount /mnt/data 
Tried it with "filename.sfs changed to
OpenOffice-3.0.sfs"
as well as
/mnt/home/OpenOffice-3.0.sfs
and also with _412.sfs appended
but after the second line (mount -o .....) I get
" no such file."

As others seem to have done this, at least with Picassa.sfs, can anyone offer some help as it does seem that there is a way.

Thanks

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#2 Post by sunburnt »

Hi davesurrey; Your code shows a " character at the end (don't know if you typed it that way).

Code: Select all

OpenOffice-3.0.sfs"
Also Dougal's script mounts the SFS file at: /mnt/data not: /mnt/home

User avatar
Mr. Maxwell
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 23:56
Location: Nebraska, USA

#3 Post by Mr. Maxwell »

Try this thread: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=37113

Near the bottom of the first page you should find the download for sfsinstaller_full-HD.tar.gz. Download it and run it, should work. Be warned however that it DOES NOT uninstall .sfs files.

Hope the helps.
[url=http://www.tribalwars.net/3389956.html]Super amazing game![/url]

davesurrey
Posts: 1198
Joined: Tue 05 Aug 2008, 18:12
Location: UK

#4 Post by davesurrey »

@sunburnt:
The " character in my script is a typo in the thread only. The code was okay (didn't have the " in it) when I tried it in Puppy.

I think I did try putting the sfs in /mnt/data as well as /mnt/home but it's worth trying that again. Thanks.

@Mr. Maxwell:
Thanks for the link. I'll give it a go tonight and report back if successful.
I'm using an experimental install for this so no worries if I goof it up.

Thanks for the help both of you.
Cheers
Dave

User avatar
rcrsn51
Posts: 13096
Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 13:50
Location: Stratford, Ontario

#5 Post by rcrsn51 »

When you open a console and type a command, you need to be in the same folder as the .sfs file. Use the "ls" command to verify that you are in the right place.

User avatar
Sit Heel Speak
Posts: 2595
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006, 03:22
Location: downwind

#6 Post by Sit Heel Speak »

Try creating /mnt/OO3 first, and specify filesystemtype in mount, and flush the buffers with sync before unmounting:

Code: Select all

rm -Rf /mnt/data ##earlier, erroneously typed rmdir /mnt/data
modprobe squashfs
mkdir /mnt/OO3
mount -o loop -t squashfs /mnt/home/OpenOffice-3.0.sfs /mnt/OO3
cd /mnt/OO3
cp -a * /
sync
cd /  ## earlier, erroneously omitted
umount /mnt/OO3
rm -Rf /mnt/OO3 ## earlier, erroneously typed rmdir /mnt/OO3
Last edited by Sit Heel Speak on Sat 10 Jan 2009, 04:17, edited 2 times in total.

davesurrey
Posts: 1198
Joined: Tue 05 Aug 2008, 18:12
Location: UK

#7 Post by davesurrey »

@rcrsn51
thanks but I was aware of that.

@SHS
I tried your script. I guess you meant

Code: Select all

rm -Rf
rather than

Code: Select all

rmdir
as the later won't delete /mnt/data unless it's empty.

All worked up to and including sync and the app (I used picasa2.7_400.sfs) loaded fine . But I couldn't unmount either using "umount" from the term or by clicking the file. Had to reboot.

Then tried the same with openoffice-2.2.0.sfs and OpenOffice-3.0.sfs

Same issues as above but both files install by ripping the ar** out of my desktop so much that I can't get it back to default.

Strange as this didn't happen when I used the same sfs files with a frugal install. They could have got corrupted (both of them though??) and I can't find the md5 to check them anymore. You don't have a link for them do you?? Anyone?? Google didn't come up with anything useful.

In general using sfs files with a full install seems much trickier and flakier than I would have hoped for.

SHS , grateful for your help but can you see where the umount may be failing and why it seems to affect the desktop so much when it doesn't in frugal.

Thanks
Dave[/code]

User avatar
Sit Heel Speak
Posts: 2595
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006, 03:22
Location: downwind

#8 Post by Sit Heel Speak »

davesurrey wrote:...But I couldn't unmount either using "umount" from the term or by clicking the file...
Woops you're right, rm -Rf not rmdir...and, ah, dummie me twice...you can't rm a subdir which you are currently in, as the rxvt window makes it remain in use, therefore not unmountable...see the revised version, above, of my code snippet. Change dir out of /mnt/OO3 into / before you umount /mnt/OO3 :oops: :roll: :)

drblock2
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon 19 Jan 2009, 12:38

Running OpenOffice from an .sfs file

#9 Post by drblock2 »

For some reason, the boot manager (Puppy 4.2) does not install OpenOffice-3.1.sfs (at least not if it is third in line behind devxx and wine).

There is an easy work around using ROX:

In ROX, go to /mnt/home, click on OpenOffice-3.1.sfs. This automatically makes a subdirectory and unpacks the code. Go to the subdirectory "+mnt+home+OpenOffice-3.1.sfs" and click through to /opt/openoffice.org3/program".

In ROX, drag the icon soffice.bin to the desk top along with any of the icons for individual programs you might wish to start directly (e.g., swrite).

You can now start openoffice by clicking on the dest-top icon.

When you reboot, the icons will display the warning triangle (because the sfs file is not mounted). Simply navigate to /mnt/home in ROX and click on the OpenOffice-3.1.sfs icon and your desk-top icons will come to life (when you pass the mouse pointer over them). You are in business.

Should you wish to unmount openoffice before rebooting, just close the application and click on the OpenOffice-3.1.sfs icon in /mnt/home again.

[Update!]
As I have noted elsewhere,
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 4&start=15

It is essential to install OpenOffice-3.1.sfs in a directory other than /mnt/home. Otherwise, CUPS will not function.
Last edited by drblock2 on Sat 06 Jun 2009, 13:16, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dejan555
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sun 30 Nov 2008, 11:57
Location: Montenegro
Contact:

#10 Post by dejan555 »

I've made a SFS install script also, it doesn't uninstall files neither, it's simple to use, just right click on sfs file-> "install"

Here's the topic:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=40779

there's yet another sfs installer atached there which does uninstall files:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 284#298284
puppy.b0x.me stuff mirrored [url=https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_Mb589v0iCXNnhSZWRwd3R2UWs]HERE[/url] or [url=http://archive.org/details/Puppy_Linux_puppy.b0x.me_mirror]HERE[/url]

Bruce B

#11 Post by Bruce B »

dejan555 wrote:I've made a SFS install script also, it doesn't uninstall files neither, it's simple to use, just right click on sfs file-> "install"

Here's the topic:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=40779

there's yet another sfs installer atached there which does uninstall files:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 284#298284
dejan555 when writing these scripts:

Uses his 'noggin;
Knowing what is doing;
Knowing why he is doing it.

================

As for the continuing perpetuation if this advice:

cp -a * /

There is no discussion WHAT the command does, it is
obvious!

Yet, who will step up to the plate and explain WHY?

peterw
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed 19 Jul 2006, 12:12
Location: UK

openoffice sfs versus pet

#12 Post by peterw »

Hi

This may be useful to you.

I to have had problems loading .sfs files for a full install and once I found a script that did it fine but unfortunately, have misplaced it. However, I have located a pet package for openoffice 3 that works fine with puppy 4.2 and puts the start commands in the menu ie In Calculate you get OpenOffice- Calc spreadsheet. You can also drag icons onto the desktop.
The address of the site is http://www.leprichaunproductions.com/ev ... s/puppy_4/

It installed fine even though it complained about a lot of missing dependencies. And so far I can't see anything wrong with it. In the past I have used a openoffice 2.4 pet that complained about missing dependencies and that was always ok. Of course you have the ability to uninstall it.

Regards

Bruce B

Re: openoffice sfs versus pet

#13 Post by Bruce B »

peterw wrote:
It installed fine even though it complained about a lot of
missing dependencies. And so far I can't see anything
wrong with it. In the past I have used a openoffice 2.4 pet
that complained about missing dependencies and that was
always ok.

Of course you have the ability to uninstall it.
How's that work? The friendly packager didn't test his
work, and uploaded it as a 'job well done'

This isn't the first Puppy package that didn't cut the
muster.

The .pet extension is the only requisite for knowing the
package is faithful?

Do the packagers put their name or handle in the
package? It this even recommended in the packaging
instructions.

How about the possibility that a .pet was package made on
a modified Puppy which already some dependency files
installed earlier?

Is the packager a careful and considerate enough worker
to test his gift on a clean pup_save file to see if it works?

Is this final step even recommended?

If packagers were required to sign the packages, at least
we could learn who's doing it to you and who's doing it for
you.

Bruce

Post Reply