GtkDialog - Make Image / Save / SFS files utility.

Under development: PCMCIA, wireless, etc.
Message
Author
User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

GtkDialog - Make Image / Save / SFS files utility.

#1 Post by sunburnt »

Saintless made a new small Debian from the Debian-Live distro.
It doesn`t have any utilities yet, so I made this to help out.

I`m going to expand on it so it can replace Puppy`s "First Run Shutdown Save File Wizard".
It`s been a problem for far too long now. And I dislike wizards anyway ( Mages are okay. :wink: ).

mk-save.gtkdlg makes: ext2, ext3, ext4, and sfs files.

##### NEWER Version: ### CheckBox to auto. add Puppy Linux extensions.


### And now I apologize for the bad "mkfs" command. AGAIN...
Attachments
mk-save.gtkdlg.zip
Unzip into $PATH
(1.1 KiB) Downloaded 391 times
mk-save.gtkdlg.png
(159.56 KiB) Downloaded 644 times
Last edited by sunburnt on Wed 18 Dec 2013, 03:27, edited 17 times in total.

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

#2 Post by sunburnt »

How many people actually use an encrypted Save file.?
I`ve never used one, and I doubt it`s all that popular.

Bringing back the use of a Save partition / folder instead of a Save file is a good idea.
.

User avatar
saintless
Posts: 3862
Joined: Sat 11 Jun 2011, 13:43
Location: Bulgaria

#3 Post by saintless »

sunburnt wrote:How many people actually use an encrypted Save file.?
I`ve never used one, and I doubt it`s all that popular.

Bringing back the use of a Save partition / folder instead of a Save file is a good idea.
.
Thank you, Sunburnt,

I've never used encrypted also. I have KDPup, TXZ-Pup and Turbopup remastered for my needs and if I ever use save file it is not bigger than 32 Mb (not encrypted).

Cheers, Toni

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

#4 Post by sunburnt »

My thoughts exactly Toni, if no PET pkgs. are used then the Save can be fairly tiny.

I solved my Save file growing because of Firefox by moving the Mozilla cache.
I moved: /root/.cache/mozilla to /tmp/mozilla_cache
And then made a link: /root/.cache/mozilla => /tmp/mozilla_cache
Now at shutdown the Firefox cache is self deleting. At boot an empty cache.
Added the link & mkdir commands to /etc/rc.d/rc.local so it`s always ready at boot.

# Perhaps I should write this in the How To section... :roll:
.

User avatar
saintless
Posts: 3862
Joined: Sat 11 Jun 2011, 13:43
Location: Bulgaria

#5 Post by saintless »

sunburnt wrote:# Perhaps I should write this in the How To section... :roll:
.
This is good idea. I usual turn off submit crash reports. They can become big in time.

Cheers, Toni

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#6 Post by musher0 »

Hi, sunburnt.

Thanks but no thanks. :lol:

I normally don't like to toot my own horn, but...

While my script is CLI, it's much more elaborate. (ahem) :)
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... ost#742075
(Browse a few messages up to see illustrations of how it works.

In yours, the user has to know what to name the ?fs file according ot the Puppy.

At it his, he/she can come up with any name (see pic.) and the created file will be useless.

Also, a squash file needs some folder to squash, doesn't? (A bug will do! ;) )
So why offer the squash choice? Jo no comprendo.

BFN,

musher0
Attachments
mk-save-too-simple-dialog!.jpg
(26.95 KiB) Downloaded 761 times
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

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

#7 Post by sunburnt »

musher0; Yes the ext2-4 image files don`t auto. add the extension.
I guess I could fully Puppize it and have it add the extensions.

The latest version does do Squash files, and it adds the .sfs extension if needed.
It`s not as capable as a SFS maker I made years ago, but it good for simple tasks.

Looked at your image file script. Too complex for such a simple thing.!

# Made the change you suggested...
.

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#8 Post by musher0 »

Have you updated the attachment in post 1?
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

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

#9 Post by sunburnt »

Yep, just delayed is all. Sorry about that... Terry

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#10 Post by musher0 »

@ sunburnt:

Would you consider a collaboration? I know message panels such as yours are more popular than my windowed CLI panels. I'm tempted, but xml scripts give the itch! Also, I haven't finished evolving this script yet.

Let me know by PM or here? BFN.

musher0
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

User avatar
Ted Dog
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed 14 Sep 2005, 02:35
Location: Heart of Texas

#11 Post by Ted Dog »

also working on same line of save files ideas a few suggestions. a pet wrapper around sfs files. There is a false divide of camps with the sfs verses pet people. I suggest a pet style wrapper to load / unload a embedded sfs file. And combined name for such a combo. The real issue with sfs is lack of install for the uniqueness of squashfs. Where pets can be installed and some what untinstalled.
Im mostly perplexed about how to handle sfs files with multisession methods. loading large files that may not be needed at boot. this is where a smart pet style loader for off load sfs files would be ideal.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#12 Post by mikeb »

Im mostly perplexed about how to handle sfs files with multisession methods. loading large files that may not be needed at boot. this is where a smart pet style loader for off load sfs files would be ideal.
sfs on the fly loader should do the job for you so no need to load anything at boot you do not need.

sfs installer.... well sfs is an archive format just like pet so my head says 'why not' ...

mike

User avatar
Ted Dog
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed 14 Sep 2005, 02:35
Location: Heart of Texas

#13 Post by Ted Dog »

need to step away from sfs as a file system storage idea a few feet. Some how over the years sfs moved from way BK method of built in division to REMOVE files as a logical group, with pre-existing hooks to reattach if user decides for added bulk. To how its is used now as a large package ready to attach filesystem, WITHOUT buit in hooks.
This is the problem, many stand alone packages would work fine without hookin existing. But most of the problems are related to overlaying existing or duplicate files. LOAD SFS WAS a great leap forward. But not a cure. I think a cure would be a pet like loader around sfs. SFS files would no longer exist as a stand alone.

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

#14 Post by sunburnt »

Ted Dog; A RoxApp or AppDir is a Squash file ( I`ve used SFS file directly ) in a dir. with wrapper scripts.
Using a common SFS file is a novel idea, wrapping in a pet pkg double compresses it...

# How about a AppDir with a popup menu: Install as: [Loose Files] [SFS union File] [AppDir].
The AppDir wouldn`t actually install anything of course, just sets how the pkg. is used & run..

All pkg types: PET, SFS, & AppDir leave dirs, files, and links unless the pkg. builder was tidy.
Especially a problem in /root or $HOME because the files/etc. have to be made on-the-fly.

Yes, one of my gripes about unions is it`s layer over-shadowing problem.
2 good pages about unions and their problems: http://lwn.net/Articles/324291/
And there`s no possible "union" fix, it`s just a reality of the union concept of layering.

seaside has a mime based setup ( I think ), click SFS to mount and union, and maybe run.
And RSH has done lots with this whole simplifying SFS / union usage thing.


musher0; I hate xml with a passion also. But I`ll help you out any way I can. Let me know...
Instead of developing you end up spending your time wrestling with GtkDialog. Rrrrrrrr
.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#15 Post by mikeb »

But most of the problems are related to overlaying existing or duplicate files. LOAD SFS WAS a great leap forward. But not a cure.
Historically using unionfs limited the number of layers. Coding was a bit easier putting additional sfs underneath the main pup_xxx.sfs (it gets special treatment in puppy) plus there would be one or 2 at max addon files. This has persisted even though up to 252 sfs is possible..(can't say I would be happy with that many but 20-30 is a figure i commonly use.) A pet adds files on top of the existing ones if it needs to... thats accepted as normal... a sfs should do the same for the same reasons as required. The init and sfs on the fly loaders could do this... its not rocket science... and would make life much simpler for package makers. Problems are there to be solved and this one has had a cure for years...lets do it.

mike

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

#16 Post by sunburnt »

Mike; Is there a plan that you have in mind? RSH`s efforts are that most comprehensive so far.

And I agree, there`s soo much that needs repairing in Puppy. And for sooo long now too...

The union stack problems.
The lack of support for switching WMs and DMs.
The menu setup is a minor mess.
On and on...


amigo called Puppy a square wheel that was being reinvented ( Very Funny... :lol: ).
His apt analogy points out, that to develop Puppy you`re starting out with damaged goods.

I like Saintless`s approach better. Take Deb. Wheezy and reverse engineer a Puppy clone.
Now apt-get and all the other "it-just-works" things about Debian is all part of the package.
Not to mention Debian`s excellent repository of nearly every freeking app ever made.
I don`t intend to pretend that Deb. is perfect, but many have my opinion it`s the best choice.
.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#17 Post by mikeb »

I like Saintless`s approach better. Take Deb. Wheezy and reverse engineer a Puppy clone.
Yes I did that with slax 6/nimblex.... does produce a nice result though I went for Xfce4 rather than the rox and thing approach.
Its a good choice as it does the unionfs boogie properly so nothing to do in that respect. I did add tar save as an option which took a few lines slipped in since saving method is set by boot parameter but otherwise the core is untouched. Its gives much of the renowned puppy flexibility ... boot from anything stuff, load to ram and so on but with a slackware distroness about it. ..look a new word.

A sprinkling of scripted wizards added and nothing kde whatsoever (but easily available if wanted) so the system keeps light and fluffy. Folder saving of course and as such its been chugging away for several years on the original save.

A plan... well one sees opportunities for improvements that would benefit this distro which does have some good features (otherwise why puppify anything) and its also many users first taste of linux so its nice to put on a good show.
Ideas thrown in in the past have eventually crept in so one keeps plugging :)

I did post my hacky but happily layering script on the modular thread for anyone who wants to play.

By the way as an aside I used the kde modules from nimblex and got them working in puppy 2.02.... 60MB for desktop, office and libs..... was about 95% working including the menu which was a bit stubborn. No hal of course and some configs made no sense. Perhaps it was too much like windows XP for me so I went the other way...stick the pup on the slax :D

Hope that makes some sense

mike

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

#18 Post by sunburnt »

Mike; I asked micko if he had tried putting the Slackware PM into Slacko, no reply.
If you have done this, then it would be sensible to see if it could work in Slacko.

# Also I can`t tell how big Slackware`s app base is. Is it as big as Debian`s.?

I`ve asked about 3 times how much of Puppy is Puppy ( if you understand my drift ).
Is the kernel.? How much of the system files are Slackware, etc., etc...

At a point reverse engineering makes a lot more sense than continued fiddling. Ya think.?

# Our point... If a Puppy clone is made of a solid Slackware / Debian base, it`s better, right.?
They both have working PMs, and large package repositories. It just makes too much sense..
.

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#19 Post by musher0 »

Hello sunburnt and all.

I just remembered this.

As you may not know, since it was announced on the French side of the forum
about a month and a half ago, ASRI-Education created a SimplePupSave utility
to create pupsave files.

It's a gtk-message message window pretty much like yours. An English version
exists, if you care to look at it.
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 77&t=85829

BFN.

musher0
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

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

#20 Post by sunburnt »

yeah... I knew that there were at least several others that I`d seen here in the forum.

I didn`t bother to look but functionality looks about the same.

Post Reply