I added a few lines to the rc.local file to run another script not on the image.gz file.
if [ -f "/mnt/home/add-local" ]; then
. /mnt/home/add-local
fi
If made part of all Puppies, additions could be made to the bootup without having to make a new image.gz file every time.
I made a new image.gz & then gunzipped it & checked it's contense, all was good.
Bootup didn't run the "off - image.gz" file: add-local.
Checking the /etc/rc.d/rc.local file showed that the added lines weren't there!
I'm really confused how the rc.local file got changed back to it's original state.
rc.local doesn't keep changes!
-
Pizzasgood
- Posts: 6183
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
- Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Actually, it depends (I think).
You should edit rc.local for an individual installation.
If you remaster the image.gz, you need to do the editing to rc.local0.
rc.local is definately persistant when you simply edit it, but from your post it looks like it isn't when you remaster it. In Puppy, if there is a file with a 0 at the end of it, that is what you edit before remastering. Like root0.
You should edit rc.local for an individual installation.
If you remaster the image.gz, you need to do the editing to rc.local0.
rc.local is definately persistant when you simply edit it, but from your post it looks like it isn't when you remaster it. In Puppy, if there is a file with a 0 at the end of it, that is what you edit before remastering. Like root0.
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]
I like what you are trying to do -- I have been thinking/working along the same lines -- let us know what you figure out!
But I am confused about the specific construct -- are you sure it is legal? I thought I read that way of "including" scripts was limited to the current sub-directory, or something screwy like that? So, I thought maybe a script would have to be copied before it could be include-processed, which would maybe be impossible if you were currently within a read-only filesystem...
But I am confused about the specific construct -- are you sure it is legal? I thought I read that way of "including" scripts was limited to the current sub-directory, or something screwy like that? So, I thought maybe a script would have to be copied before it could be include-processed, which would maybe be impossible if you were currently within a read-only filesystem...
I think Pizzasgood is right;
rc.local is edited directly, NOT in the image.gz file
rc.local0 is edited in the image.gz file (I think, I'll check to be sure)
Directly editing rc.local0 DID NOT keep the changes at boot.
So... rc.local seems to come from the pup001 file, & rc.local0 seems to come from the image.gz file.
kethd; the file in: /mnt/home ran just as my code is, just use a full path to it (of course).
Thanks guys, I've been struggling with this.
rc.local is edited directly, NOT in the image.gz file
rc.local0 is edited in the image.gz file (I think, I'll check to be sure)
Directly editing rc.local0 DID NOT keep the changes at boot.
So... rc.local seems to come from the pup001 file, & rc.local0 seems to come from the image.gz file.
kethd; the file in: /mnt/home ran just as my code is, just use a full path to it (of course).
Thanks guys, I've been struggling with this.