(OLD) (ARCHIVED) Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

shinobar · Joined: 28 May 2009 Posts: 2674 Location: Japan

tnx mavrothal.
i am using sfs_load-2.3.2 on PUPMODE=13 and working with no problem so far.

mavrothal · Joined: 24 Aug 2009 Posts: 3108

Thx
Any ideas how to adapt it for pupmode 2?
It should be possible as aufs is there just the same.
Is it worth trying to integrate it with the current or maybe write a new script and have it called from sfs_load?
Best

Argolance · Posted: Fri 05 Jun 2015, 05:58 Post subject:

Bonjour,

Please take a look around this thread...

sfs_load (2.3.2) seems to generate a (wrong) path starting with '/initrd/initrd/' (pupmode 5)

Cordialement.

mavrothal · Joined: 24 Aug 2009 Posts: 3108

ASRI éducation · Joined: 09 May 2009 Posts: 3203 Location: France

sfs_load-2.3.0.pet

I used the latest version of shinobar 'sfs_load-2.3.pet (2014-09-06)'.
I have not integrated the mavrothal changes (v2.3.1/2.3.2) because testing is not finished.

Proposed changes for /usr/sbin/sfs_load
#20150706 v2.3.0 by ASRI: Increase the size of main GUI # Add info "number of sfs mounted" # For the list of mounted sfs, use a "table" (instead of "list") to sort the list alphabetically # Add button refresh

Regards

Argolance · Posted: Fri 21 Aug 2015, 10:12 Post subject:

Bonjour,
When trying to load an SFS file that is different but has the same name of an already loaded SFS file, SFS_load says this SFS is already loaded and asks user if he wants to unload it.
If user wants to load the new one and then to copy or to move it to /initrd/mnt/dev_save, SFS_load just says SFS file "was found" but does not allow user to choose if he wants to keep the old one or to overwrite it with the new one.
Is it silly or could the script be modified beneficially in this way? I tried to test/do this myself but am a bit afraid to break something so much the script is complicated for me Embarassed

.

Cordialement.

musher0 · Posted: Fri 21 Aug 2015, 11:11 Post subject:

Bonjour Argolance.

It could be a simple matter of adding a check in the script for size and/or date of the
sfs file.

But I think it is Linux itself (and maybe all OS's) that cannot handle two files of the same
name at the same time. This is a good way to confuse the system, let alone sfs-load.
First trick explained in The Hacker's Book, I think.

A question, though: if you're using sfs-load and you get that message, does that means
that you have already and gleefully squished the existing sfs by the same name? Smile

This situation happens every second month with java JRE for example :
someone does a new sfs for the new java JRE, we unload the old one and we load
the new one. Simple. But of course the javas don't have the same version number.

À plus tard.

musher0

Argolance · Posted: Fri 21 Aug 2015, 12:08 Post subject:

Bonjour,
Thanks for replying, dear musher0 Wink

musher0 · Posted: Fri 21 Aug 2015, 14:08 Post subject:

Hello again, Argolance.

Je crois que ç'a à voir avec les couches / I think it has to do with the layers.
and you can't change an active layer mounted at /initrd/pup_ro-something without
un-mounting it first.

This layer is active, so removing it while it is active would be like cutting the branch
you are sitting on. The system will not let you do it.

On the other hand,

Argolance · Posted: Fri 21 Aug 2015, 17:48 Post subject:

[EDIT]
Bonsoir,
Thank you musher0.

musher0 · Posted: Sat 22 Aug 2015, 03:01 Post subject:

Hello Argolance.

Moi, a "leading light" among Puppyists?! Wow, that really is flattery! You must have a
favor to ask me! Wink

I find you courageous to change the devx file "in vivo". I know that I wouldn't risk it! Smile

If it works, bravo!

I did follow your reasoning, and I think it makes sense, but I am more conservative
than you are, so I'll stick with the traditional procedure for changing sfs's.

However, this may be of interest to you:

I remember that on another thread (mais lequel dans le capharnaüm du forum ! / but
which one in this mess of a forum! ) mikeb (I think) had found a way to change
pupsaves without exiting the Puppy. I guess that what you are seeking is along those
lines. If he could do it with a pupsave, why not with a regular sfs?

The trick, if I remember correctly, was to be in the main puppy sfs (probably in urxvt)
when doing the change. He had various pupsaves in the form of pup_rw directories
neatly stored on /mnt/home. He would erase the current /initrd/pup_rw and copy another
one in its place. And vroom, he had another flavor of the Puppy at his fingertips.

I don't know if this helps, but there you have it!

Bye for now / À+

musher0

Argolance · Posted: Sat 22 Aug 2015, 06:26 Post subject:

Argolance · Posted: Sat 22 Aug 2015, 14:05 Post subject:

Hello,

musher0 · Posted: Sat 22 Aug 2015, 19:15 Post subject:

Ahem. That statement is illogical: the file system in the sfs file has to be mounted to
be of any benefit to the user.

Without filemount, no sfs. Oh, the sfs will exist, but as I said, it won't be of any benefit.

Argolance · Posted: Sun 23 Aug 2015, 05:33 Post subject: