Pet made with Absolute Links?

Using applications, configuring, problems
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
davids45
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun 26 Nov 2006, 23:33
Location: Chatswood, NSW

Pet made with Absolute Links?

#1 Post by davids45 »

G'day,

On my desktop, I have some small partitions (about 3GB each) dedicated to running some Full Pups. I have a large data partition (300GB-ish) that is mounted at boot to be available to whichever Pup is run.

With Frugals, for my personal applications, I simply use sfs files (each mounted at boot with Boot Manager) of my collected&combined applications (browsers, LibreOffice, games, graphics, utilities, and wine with various installed MS programs). This way, I don't need a big save folder or file for each Frugal :D , even though my several applications sfs files are now over 2GB :shock: .

Full Pups suffer because pets and installed sfs take up their partition space :( . So a 3GB Full partition is now too small if I were to make pets of these sfs applications.

However, in a Full Pup, I can run quite a few of these personal applications via sym-links from directories on my data partition. These links I have to create manually in each new Full Pup. Which is quite slow and complex compared to simply mounting the sfs in a new Frugal.

Can I create an all-applications pet for my Fulls that is composed just of absolute links from my data partition expanded sfs program files?

To 'install' my personal applications to a new Full Pup, all I need do is run this links-only pet. This will minimise the increase in the Full Pup partition usage so 3GB will still be more than enough for each Full while I can still have all my applications.

On my data partition, I hold expanded directories of my application sfs so I can make small changes to any files and then re-create/update the sfs with mksquashfs.

For example, the first screen-shot shows the directories in my expanded LOwinegamefile.sfs (LibreOffice, games, wine+programs, file managers) and the second screenshot shows the /usr/share/applications file list for this sfs. The third screenshot shows the size of this expanded sfs directory which is why my 3GB for Fulls would be under pressure.

Is there some way to easily make a new directory of this expanded sfs directory, creating absolute sym-links for every file in the sfs directory?

That is, copy the individual contents of the directory as corresponding absolute sym-links, without doing it one-by-one?

My theory is I could then use dir2pet to convert this directory of absolute links into the space-saving applications pet for my Fulls. Just run this pet in a new Full to have all my applications available without bloating the Full's partition.

Thanks for your time, and any advice.

David S.
Attachments
applications-sfs-structure.jpg
base directories in this particular applications sfs
(38.52 KiB) Downloaded 255 times
usr-share-apps-in-main-sfs.jpg
applications in this sfs with .desktop files
(212.2 KiB) Downloaded 257 times
size-of-main-sfs.jpg
size of expanded sfs
(46.66 KiB) Downloaded 258 times

Sailor Enceladus
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon 22 Feb 2016, 19:43

#2 Post by Sailor Enceladus »

Hi David,

I'm on a Full Install lately too, because I found that my 1GB RAM does not get overloaded as quickly on it (then hitting swap) as when using Frugal. I noticed that when you click on an sfs (at least when I tried it with the devx) it copies it all onto the partition, which was an interesting change. Since my partition is 20GB this is all good to me, only using about 2GB of it now. :)

From what I understand, you're saying that you want the sfs to be copied into it's own folder, then symlinked back to the root? And that you want all your pets to go into that folder? I'm trying to wrap my head around if this is possible, because I think there can only be one / and one /usr etc. but I could be wrong. In a frugal install you can just put all your programs into the adrv so it's separated before it all gets loaded, still not too familiar with if anything like that is possible in Full install though.

User avatar
bigpup
Posts: 13886
Joined: Sun 11 Oct 2009, 18:15
Location: S.C. USA

#3 Post by bigpup »

Just an idea.

Put all the sym-links in a directory.

Copy that directory to a new full install of Puppy.

Navigate to the directory.

Click on whatever sym-link you want to.

Add a new program, add a new link to the directory.

Keep a copy of the directory on your data partition.

Another idea.
You could just keep the directory on the data partition and make a sym-link to it.
This sym-link is all that you would need to add to a new full install. Click on this sym-link and it would open the directory with all the sym-links in it.

You could make a desktop icon for the directory or a sm-link to the directory, for easy access.
Not in the menu, but opening a directory, with a bunch of links that would start programs, is not much different than navigating the menu.

You could even separate the sym-links into sub directories. All the games in a games directory, browsers in a browser directory, etc.......
For example, the first screen-shot shows the directories in my expanded LOwinegamefile.sfs (LibreOffice, games, wine+programs, file managers) and the second screenshot shows the /usr/share/applications file list for this sfs. The third screenshot shows the size of this expanded sfs directory
If I understand you already have this link directory on the data drive.
You just need a link to it you can put into any full install :idea:
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected :shock:
YaPI(any iso installer)

s243a
Posts: 2580
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 04:48
Contact:

#4 Post by s243a »

If all the symlinks are in one director then just create a symlink to that directory. Call it mnt/share or something. Then all your paths to your applications will start out as "/mnt/share" followed by 0 or more folders, followed by a symlink and then the application name.

You still might want to create an sfs of symlinks though for non portable applications which expect to find things in specific paths.

Alternatively for non-portable applications you could compile them with a prefix that matches the name of your symlink directory (e.g. /mnt/share.

User avatar
davids45
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun 26 Nov 2006, 23:33
Location: Chatswood, NSW

Pet of sym links?

#5 Post by davids45 »

G'day Sailor Enceladus, bigpup and s243a,

Thanks for your posts. I apologise for not being totally clear as to what I think I want - I'm not sure I know myself yet :shock: .

A pet installs applications/programs into a Pup so these are integrated into the Puppy - such an 'app' can become the default package for certain tasks, appear on menus, etc. But these pet package files may take up considerable memory in the Full Pup's hard-drive partition.
If instead, every file in the Pet was a sym-link back to each file stored on another big-but-mounted partition, the pet of sym-links would only add a minimal extra memory to the new Pup.

A pet or sfs can be expanded into a directory containing its original files in their original tree-structures. This is a reversible process - the directory can be converted back to the original pet or sfs with, for example, dir2pet or mksquashfs.

Is there a simple way to take such a pet or sfs directory and copy every file into a sym-link in the 'same' directory? And retain this directory structure so a pet or sfs made of this new all-sym-link-files directory will 'install' each link into the right place in a new Full Pup?

At present in any new Full Pup, I'm doing this manually copying files as sym-links from my data partition directories to the same directories in the Full Pup, but it is time-consuming, sub-directory by sub-directory, and I sometimes/often lose track of where I'm up to :oops: .

My default option for this idea is to manually make a sym-links copy of each pet or sfs of its original files onto my data partition and make a pet of this new all-files-as-sym-links directory.

To add my applications to a new Full Pup without using up its partition, I just run this pet, not the 'big' original pet version.

So, I was wondering if there is an easy way to sym-link every file 'automatically' in a complex directory structure and keep the directory structure, rather than manually subdirectory by subdirectory as I do now?

Or is this not possible?

Thanks again,

David S.

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#6 Post by Mike Walsh »

Hiya, David.

Hm. That's an 'interesting' one, I gotta admit.

As a long-time user of your method for running apps 'remotely' via sym-link from an external/alternate 'data' partition/directory (which works extremely well, BTW), this is one that interests me, too.

I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work. I mean, many .pets/SFSes contain sym-links somewhere in their structure.....so why not a .pet comprised entirely of sym-links? (I wouldn't bother with doing this as an SFS; the final size is going to be negligible, even if you put the multiple sym-links for several remote packages into the one .pet.)

I'll have to try this one out myself tomorrow; I've got a few smaller, easy-to-unlink apps on my 'data' partition, which won't take long to re-set if this don't pan out..I reckon as long as you create the links directly into your .pet directory, using 'Link(Absolute)' - not 'Link(Relative)' - it ought to work. Will report back with the results, mate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Sailor Enceladus:-

What David's talking about is that in your remote 'data' partition/directory, you recreate all the necessary system folders (/opt, /root, /usr, /usr/bin, /usr/lib,/usr/share, etc) simply because it's easier to see what you're doing when you 'install' the remote app (which is, of course, all copied in manually anyway). It also makes it simpler to see where you need to create all the necessary sym-links as it's linked into each Pup.

(I do a lot of this; running the same 5 browsers in each of 10 Pups, no way am I installing 50 browsers! Think of the mass-duplication.....and all that extra space that would be 'gobbled up'. Anyway, you can only run one Pup on the same machine at any given time.....and you only really want to run one browser at a time, too. Think about it.....)

Hopefully, that makes some kinda sense..?


Mike. :wink:

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#7 Post by Mike Walsh »

@davids45:-

Well, since I wasn't ready to go up the wooden hill, I decided to have a go at this. Accordingly, I deleted all the sym-links for my remote copy of 32-bit Chrome 48 in today's Puppy (Precise 571), and made up a .pet comprising of all the appropriate sym-links for Chrome, using 'Link(Absolute)'.

Since I use Trio's Pet-Maker most of the time, which creates a directory in /root called 'make-pet', I created the directory in that, then created the necessary folders, and 'dragged' the sym-links into the appropriate locations. Some of your entries will have to be actual directories.....specially if your multiple apps have entries in the same one.

Final size of the actual .pet was less than 1k; 642b to be exact! But, it installed fine.....leaving me simply to drag the /usr/share/applications entry onto the desktop, edit the name, and move it into position. And it works perfectly.

So, like I said, there's no reason why you can't make up a .pet with multiple sym-links for several 'remote' apps all in the same .pet. Size is going to be pretty tiny; a few k at most.

See how you get on with it. It'll certainly simplify installing all your remote apps, that's for sure; something like this has got to be a 'custom' .pet, anyway, specially created for the individual's personal set-up. No two individuals will have the 'remote' on the same /mount point, or be running the same apps; you can't really make a 'generic' .pet of this, 'cos I bet there's probably only a handful of Puppians who run stuff in this manner. And, er, thanks for the idea, BTW. It hadn't occurred to me, I'll admit..!


Mike. :wink:

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#8 Post by Mike Walsh »

Hi, David.

Further to my last post, I've taken it one step further.

I've been running Tahrpup ever since release, 3 years ago. In that time, it's had so much stuff done to it (not all sensible, either..!), it was getting more than a wee bit the 'worse for wear', and somewhat tatty around the edges. I decided it was time for a fresh install, so this afternoon I waved a fond 'bye-bye' to it, and upgraded to Tahr 6.0.6 (uefi).

I thought this would be a perfect opportunity to try this idea out for real. That said, I took the time to make up a 'Symlinks' .pet package for all progs/apps on my remote data partition, and, having got Tahr 606 up-and-running, installed the .pet.

The resulting .pet was all of 2721b in size; it works perfectly.....and definitely speeded up the whole business by at least a factor of 5, I would estimate. So, yes; it's definitely worth pursuing, mate, 'cos the principle does work.

If you do decide to try it, let us know how you get on, yes? Thanks.


Mike. :wink:
Last edited by Mike Walsh on Thu 07 Dec 2017, 20:37, edited 3 times in total.

s243a
Posts: 2580
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 04:48
Contact:

#9 Post by s243a »

Mike Walsh wrote:
Well, since I wasn't ready to go up the wooden hill, I decided to have a go at this.
See how you get on with it. It'll certainly simplify installing all your remote apps, that's for sure; something like this has got to be a 'custom' .pet, anyway, specially created for the individual's personal set-up. No two individuals will have the 'remote' on the same /mount point, or be running the same apps; you can't really make a 'generic' .pet of this, 'cos I bet there's probably only a handful of Puppians who run stuff in this manner. And, er, thanks for the idea, BTW. It hadn't occurred to me, I'll admit..!


Mike. :wink:
If we could all agree on one symlink as a root prefix then such pets would be something that we can share. This way to switch a partition you juat change one symlink.

User avatar
mikeslr
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon 16 Jun 2008, 21:20
Location: 500 seconds from Sol

#10 Post by mikeslr »

Hi s243a,

Actually, I'll bet that there is some bash-code which could determine location(s) and assign it/them to variable(s). That code and those variables could be used in a pet regardless of where one's 'root' or other partition is. :)

Unfortunately, I only know enough bash to be able to haltingly sometimes read it; not enough to write it. :(

mikesLr

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#11 Post by Mike Walsh »

@ s243a/Mikeslr:-
s243a wrote:If we could all agree on one symlink as a root prefix then such pets would be something that we can share. This way to switch a partition you just change one symlink.
Mm-hm. You're probably right. My own strength is more in assembling software where the various parts are already available.....coding (especially Bash stuff with environment variables, etc), is way over my head. I just cannot get so much as a start on figuring it out!

My point is that the way David (and at least myself that I know of) do things is somewhat unusual. His original post is buried several pages back in the how-to section; it's not as though there's been a lot of people showing much interest, after all.

Even if we did figure out a 'standardised' way of implementing this in a ready-to-use package, I somehow doubt there'd be much of a queue lining up to use it!

-----------------------------------------
mikeslr wrote:Actually, I'll bet that there is some bash-code which could determine location(s) and assign it/them to variable(s). That code and those variables could be used in a pet regardless of where one's 'root' or other partition is. :)

Unfortunately, I only know enough bash to be able to haltingly sometimes read it; not enough to write it. :(
You and me both, mate. battleshooter (and one or two others) have attempted to drive some of the basics of Bash 'variables' through my thick skull.....but they're facing an uphill task, I'm sorry to say..!

We're all different, of course. What one person will mightily struggle with, another will pick up as naturally as breathing. This is why the community works as well as it does.....we all contribute, but in our respective different ways. However, I've always thought the 'core' Forum membership who are able to contribute toward, and help shape the future development of, the next-generation Pups are of necessity going to be a small group at best.

Coding is not summat that comes naturally to very many of us. (*shrug*) I try to do what I can, but most of it is like so much Russian, Arabic & Greek to me. Languages were never my strong point; I've always been more of a 'mechanic' than a 'technician'... :oops: :roll:


Mike. :wink:
Last edited by Mike Walsh on Mon 11 Dec 2017, 10:51, edited 1 time in total.

theru
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu 23 Jul 2015, 16:40
Location: Heers, Belgium

#12 Post by theru »

I only know a little bash but I have knocked together something that may be useful as a template:

Code: Select all

ls -1 -R /initrd/pup_ro9 | tr -d : | sed 's/\/initrd\/pup_ro9//' | while read line; do
if [[  $line =~ ^/ ]]
then temp=$line ; mkdir /tmp/Slimjet$temp
elif [[ -f $temp/$line ]]
then ln -s "$temp/$line" "/tmp/Slimjet$temp/$line"
elif [[ -h $temp/$line ]]
then ln -s "$temp/$line" "/tmp/Slimjet$temp/$line"
fi
done
In this case a slimjet sfs was loaded at /initrd/pup_ro9.

The code does the following:

- create the directory /tmp/Slimjet
- do ls -1 -R of the contents of /initrd/pup_ro9
- remove the colon of the output and the /initrd/pup_ro9 prefix (at this point it looks similar to the contents of the files in /root/.packages)
- if a line starts with / then it's a directory path that will be assigned to variable $temp and it will be recreated in /tmp/Slimjet
- if a line doesn't start with / then it's a file or symlink inside the current directory. The full path will be recreated using $temp$line
- If this path is really an existing file or symlink then symlinks will be created at the correct place in /tmp/Slimjet pointing to the mountpoints of these files and not to the files itself.

It can be adapted to something like this:

Code: Select all

ls -1 -R /mnt/sda1/data | tr -d : | sed 's/\/mnt\/sda1\/data//' | while read line; do
if [[  $line =~ ^/ ]]
then temp=$line ; mkdir $temp
elif [[ -f $temp/$line ]]
then ln -s "/mnt/sda1/data$line" "$line"
elif [[ -h $temp/$line ]]
then ln -s "/mnt/sda1/data$line" "$line"
fi
done
In this case non-existing directories should be created in the filesystem and files/symlinks should be linked to from the place where puppy expects to find them.

I can't test this myself so I recommend testing it first.

User avatar
davids45
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun 26 Nov 2006, 23:33
Location: Chatswood, NSW

A small win with a small-ish pet

#13 Post by davids45 »

G'day,

Well, as a first test, I made a copy of my expanded browsers.sfs directory and then went through this copy, replacing its files with sym-links back to the same ones in the original browsers.sfs directory.
Where there was a sub-directory in the copy that was unique to the particular browser, I sym-linked that directory itself as I thought the pet process would not be in conflict with one of Pup's pre-existing sub-directories.

This processing considerably reduced the size of the copy directory which should mean installing this as a new pet would take up much less of the Full partition that the original collection of browsers would have (screenshots).

Once I thought I'd replaced every file of my browsers expanded directory copy with a sym-limk, I ran dir2pet on the copy directory to give me a browsers-all-links.pet. This pet was encouragingly much smaller than the original sfs (screenshots).

I then installed this pet into a new Full StretchPup.
All the browsers in this pet appeared in the Menu. I dragged their .desktop files to the pinboard as I prefer to start stuff from the pinboard.
Each browser worked and used its desired profile stored on my data partition (screenshot).

So, a win :D .

Wrongly thinking this just wasn't 'beginners luck' :oops: , I then did the same copy-the-directory and replace-files-with-links for my big sfs (LOwingamefile.sfs, over 2GB expanded - screenshot). This sfs I use/share with every Frugal Pup. This manual find-and-link-replace took about a hour :( .

The resulting .pet directory with these links was considerably smaller in size to the expanded sfs directory, as was the 'links' pet to the standard sfs. (final screenshots)

I ran the new LOwingamefilelinks.pet in the same StretchPup and as installed, it seemed mostly OK but some icons were MIA as was some text for the pet applications.
On a reboot however, the pinboard was without its wallpaper and all its icons now red triangles and text problems. Oh dear.

So there is a problem or two in my making of the links pet of the big sfs.

Being a Full Pup, I'll have to re-install the StretchPup - I'm already missing the Frugal simplicity of just reloading the saved Save file/folder :) .

I should back-up the test Full Pup next time, before installing any new all-links pet. One advantage of using small Full Pup partitions.

I may try splitting the applications in my big sfs into groups (e.g. file managers, LibreOffice, games, wine+programs) and make separate pets of these, so problems with one all-links.pet won't affect the others.

Still (mostly) harmless fun, to paraphrase Douglas Adams.

David S.
Attachments
usr-bin-after-links-pet.jpg
showing links have small 'footprints' compared to original files
(124.13 KiB) Downloaded 104 times
expanded-sfs-usr-bin.jpg
example directory in original expanded sfs
(43.77 KiB) Downloaded 109 times
expanded-sfs-alllinks-usr-bin.jpg
same example directory in all-links copy (for later pet creation)
(46.83 KiB) Downloaded 103 times
expanded-size-browsers-sfs.jpg
Full Pup partition 'footprint' size for normal install
(41.83 KiB) Downloaded 102 times
expanded-size-browsersalllinks-sfs.jpg
Links use much less of a Full Pup partition
(39.67 KiB) Downloaded 104 times
FullStretchPinboard-after-linkspet-installed.jpg
each browser runs via sym-link back to data partition
(100.53 KiB) Downloaded 104 times
expanded-size-mainapps-sfs.jpg
size comparison of normal files and links for big sfs
(42.82 KiB) Downloaded 111 times
expanded-size-mainapps-sfs-alllinks.jpg
alas, it made a mess of my test Full StretchPup so needs re-doing/checking
(43.66 KiB) Downloaded 104 times

s243a
Posts: 2580
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 04:48
Contact:

#14 Post by s243a »

Aside from the technical issues mentioned in the previous post it would be worth trying the pet2sfs tool in order to compare the size of an sfs of symlinks vs a pet of symlinks.

User avatar
davids45
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun 26 Nov 2006, 23:33
Location: Chatswood, NSW

"mini-pets' made with Links successful in next test

#15 Post by davids45 »

G'day,

With a problem I had in converting my big +2GB personal apps pet/sfs to a pet of sym-links (I lost pinboard icons, text,etc), I have made pets from my various small (individual) pets and sfs that constituted the big sfs/pet I had added to each Pup I try via the big pet/sfs.

This way, I hoped also to find which component of my big pet/sfs was the trouble-maker, or if there were two or more.

So I've made about a dozen and a half links-only pets of these apps and installed each one into a test new Frugal (screenshots). I realised I'd had a 'Doh!' moment using a Full Pup as a test-bed :roll: . A Frugal is so much easier to handle when something goes wrong. I have now just used rcrsn51's Save-file back-up for this testing-Frugal-XenialPup (while in another Pup) after each successful Links-pet install or restored the Save file from the back-up when the links-pet test was not so good.

I haven't yet got a Gimp-2.8 links-pet to work - Gimp-2.8 works in my big sfs, so it can be done.

Once I have Gimp fixed, I then will try these small links-pets one-by-one in a new Full Pup.

And if that's OK, I should work out how to combine all these pets into a single 'all-my-apps' pet so it's just one pet to install into future new Fulls on this computer.

Tweaking of this eventual, final, big/small-pet may be needed for the different Pup breeds (e.g. Slacko vs Ubuntu vs Debian vs whatever Barry K is using in his latest Quirky/Pyro). Library files seem to be the issue mostly, so I do already have several apps that have fixes for the various Pup bases.

I haven't yet tried anyone's script suggestions but thanks for the interest and if I get this done the hard way, I'll then see how these may help.

David S.
Attachments
directory-links-only-pets.jpg
list of the small links-pets made for test installing - only Gimp missing yet
(73.77 KiB) Downloaded 69 times
xenial-plus-links-pets.jpg
pinboard with many icons of pet-added apps run as links to data partition
(112.64 KiB) Downloaded 68 times
xenialtesting-directory.jpg
directory structure of testing Frugal
(61.99 KiB) Downloaded 66 times
save-folder-with-links-pets.jpg
Save-file with links now much smaller
(58.17 KiB) Downloaded 71 times

User avatar
davids45
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun 26 Nov 2006, 23:33
Location: Chatswood, NSW

ArtfulPup Full test

#16 Post by davids45 »

G'day,

My latest test to minimise partition use/size when having a number of Full Pups on a computer was with ArtfulPup-17.11.

After doing a new 3.8GB partition Full install from a Frugal ArtfulPup, to add my applications to the new Full ArtfulPup, I ran my present collection of just over 20 .pets, each made with only symlinks back to packages stored on my data partition. Screenshot has my present symlinks pets directory on my data partition.

I dragged .desktop files from /usr/share/applications to the pinboard for each wanted application and found they all would run as desired (desktop screenshot).

One symlink pet has been been made for lib files I find missing in SlackoPups.
And I haven't sorted out a Gimp-2.8 symlink pet yet.

But I'm finding this a good alternative in Fulls to using sfs in Frugals.

David S.
Attachments
partition-usage-linkpets.jpg
Partition usage after pets loaded - only 1.3GB used of 3.8GB
(18.5 KiB) Downloaded 37 times
symlink-pets-directory.jpg
Current directory of symlinked pets to share with Full Pups
(68.03 KiB) Downloaded 36 times
symlinkedPetsArtful.jpg
pinboard with loaded symlinked pets
(66.61 KiB) Downloaded 34 times

s243a
Posts: 2580
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2014, 04:48
Contact:

Re: ArtfulPup Full test

#17 Post by s243a »

davids45 wrote:G'day,

My latest test to minimise partition use/size when having a number of Full Pups on a computer was with ArtfulPup-17.11.

After doing a new 3.8GB partition Full install from a Frugal ArtfulPup, to add my applications to the new Full ArtfulPup, I ran my present collection of just over 20 .pets, each made with only symlinks back to packages stored on my data partition. Screenshot has my present symlinks pets directory on my data partition.

I dragged .desktop files from /usr/share/applications to the pinboard for each wanted application and found they all would run as desired (desktop screenshot).

One symlink pet has been been made for lib files I find missing in SlackoPups.
And I haven't sorted out a Gimp-2.8 symlink pet yet.

But I'm finding this a good alternative in Fulls to using sfs in Frugals.

David S.
I know this is off topic but why a full installation vs a save folder?

User avatar
davids45
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun 26 Nov 2006, 23:33
Location: Chatswood, NSW

Full and Frugal Pups

#18 Post by davids45 »

G'day s243a,

I like to try both Pup installs:
- Frugals, with simple installation, their Save files with ease of fixing mistakes, and space-saving sfs files for adding applications

- Fulls, because years ago I set up this computer with lots of small partitions for trying different Pups, thinking Fulls were better than Frugals - but now I'm convinced they're not better and are more trouble to add programs to; hence my trying to find a simple way to add my preferred programs to new Fulls without using up partition space and maintaining constant profiles across the Pups for each program.

I suppose I could re-format my hard-drives to have just Frugals in a single partition and make the rest of the drives data partitions. But I think I'm sentimental with the Fulls, despite the trouble they are compared to Frugals.

David S.

Post Reply