Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

bombayrockers · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 421 Location: Mumbai, India

How to make a .sfs file ?

Presently puppy supports .sfs files to be mounted on union /usr.
Suppose I have got some PackageX running and want to make a .sfs out of it. I would copy all the necessary files for packagex to /my-docments/packagex. inside the folder packagex there would be the following folders
/bin - containing the binaries
/lib - dependencies
/share - shared data
..

if the package you have compiled installs to /usr/local then packagex folder would contain
/local/bin
/local/lib
/local/share
..

to make a .sfs out of this execute the following command in the terminal

Flash · Posted: Mon 09 Jan 2006, 16:28 Post subject:

bbr, this would be a good place to explain, what exactly is an sfs file good for? Confused

Lobster · Posted: Mon 09 Jan 2006, 17:13 Post subject:

It allows this great piece of Puppy magic:

bombayrockers · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 421 Location: Mumbai, India

A .sfs file is a squashfs file. Some examples of .sfs files in puppy are usr_cram.fs, usr_more.sfs for wine, openoffice, kde.

a squashfs file can also be used to make a usr_more.sfs out of your /root/.usr. Once you have installed all the software you want make a usr_more.sfs out of your /root/.usr.
Various advantages of this
1. You can use all your software on a ntfs only system when it dosent allow making a pup file.
2. more free space on pup file
3. in case of a pup file failure you wont lose all you customizations.

BarryK · Posted: Mon 09 Jan 2006, 17:47 Post subject:

Thanks for the howto, bombay!

For Puppy2, the sfs files will mount on "/", but otherwise it's all as Bombay has explained.

Also, the file naming format for puppy2 is as follows:

*_200.sfs

where the "*" means any text string, the "200" is the 3 digit puppy version number. So when Puppy version 2.0.0 is released, it is compressed as 200.

Having versioning in all the .sfs files is probably a good thing.

You can have up to 4 of them, and they will load in alphabetical order, for example:

devx_200.sfs
kde_200.sfs

Order is important, as a file named myfile.txt in devx_200.sfs will hide myfile.txt in kde_200.sfs.

So, in a running puppy2:

tmpfs (ramdisk)
persistent storage (hd, flash, dvd)
pup_200.sfs (puppy himself)
devx_200.sfs
kde_200.sfs

guest5000 · Guest

Just out of curiosity. Is it possible to use upx to better compress these files ?

MU · Posted: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 02:58 Post subject:

not in usr_xxx.sfs , as it already is compressed.
UPX just makes sense in pup001 or on a harddisk.

Disadvantage:
you can not run
ldd theprogram
to check dependencies, you had to "upx -d ..." it first.

I released a small dependency-checker some days ago, that will not work with upx'ed files.
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=5751

Mark

dewdrop · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 298 Location: Texas USA

Hi Bombayrockers, and the other developers/programmers:

From a non-programmer/non-developer viewpoint - which fits me to a T., I think that the .sfs file is like having an adjustable sized trailer hitched to the back of a small car.

If a person knows which programs they want Puppy to have, and they know how to construct an .sfs file, ... and all the dependencies are included or accounted for .... that person could have Puppy with all kinds of variations.

Thus, you would end up with Puppy about 50-60 megs in size, and any number of .sfs files with all kinds of programs included.....this could be a "mini industry" inside the Puppy community.... Kind of like "Puppy Your Way". Tell one of the .sfs guru's what you want included, they would put the package together, upload it to some download site for a set amount of time, you, or whoever wants to could download it, place the file where the pup001 file is located on the hard drive, and away you go.

Is this the idea, or am I way off the mark on the usefulness of the .sfs file concept?

dewdrop

costal martignier · Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 197

sccat · Joined: 22 Aug 2005 Posts: 160

Very interesting.

Lobster · Posted: Tue 28 Mar 2006, 00:38 Post subject: turned into .sfs modules

Have put the HowTo here
http://puppylinux.org/wikka/SfsModuleCreation

Does someone have time to format it using these codes please:
http://wikkawiki.org/FormattingRules

Can puplets such as Grafpup, Hacao, Simplepup and Emptycrust be turned into .sfs modules so they will run with latest Puppy base much as megapuppy does?

If so can this process be documented - what if any is the relationship/links to .pet?

Can we add .sfs modules and info links etc to the wiki page please.

How does this change in Puppy2?

Cool

bombayrockers · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 421 Location: Mumbai, India

raffy · Joined: 25 May 2005 Posts: 4636 Location: Manila

Thanks, bombay, and here's hoping that you can redo your tux4kids sfs Smile

Something weird is happening with my testing of /usr/local/wwwroot/htdocs. The Apache conf points to /root/.usr/local/wwwroot/htdocs as the document root, but when I open /root/.usr (the invisible folder), I could only see one or two subdirectories, none of them /local. But all the subdirectories are visible in /usr (that is, starting from the visible folder /usr).

As a result, the server gets the error "Root Directory not found" Question

bombayrockers · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 421 Location: Mumbai, India

raffy,
is /usr/local/wwwroot/htdocs a part of any usr_more.sfs ? or it is installed on /root/.usr

raffy · Joined: 25 May 2005 Posts: 4636 Location: Manila

It is a remaster using alienx's excellent script (the slow one), so there is no usr_more.sfs.

I just discovered that doing something to the /htdocs and files in it will make them visible, such as "touch" in console, otherwise they remain invisible to the Apache server. Am at a loss why this happens.

Edit: I recently read a discussion about a unionfs bug causing this to happen, that should be solved with 2.6+ version of the Linux kernel.