Official SFS for desktops

What features/apps/bugfixes needed in a future Puppy
Message
Author
User avatar
lvds
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue 23 Jan 2007, 15:15
Location: Near the window

#21 Post by lvds »

gcmartin wrote:I dont know if this is useful at all, but if it is, run with it.

KNOPPIX, for years, has offered the selection on the desktop as a boot-time option. Would this be something which could/would ever be employed in the Puppy world?

I truly understand that the distro build would have to offer it AND I truly understand the storage impact on the ISO. But, ISO size is merely the things needed to boot the system...NOT what is actually running in the system. So, as such, there will be those where a larger ISO would not be recieved warmly merely because of the download impact..

But for those where this would NOT be a hardship, an ISO offering these options (or someone offering a USB/DVD) this might actually work.

Also, Knoppix offers an additional option at boot-time ... boot a 32bit version or boot the 64bit version. This too, could provide some very interesting possibility in Puppyland, too.

Can this kind of packaging technique(s) work in Puppyland?
If each desktop are all in .SFS independant files, that would not have any impact on the size of the iso :-)

simargl

#22 Post by simargl »

.
Last edited by simargl on Sun 01 Sep 2013, 15:10, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lvds
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue 23 Jan 2007, 15:15
Location: Near the window

#23 Post by lvds »

simargl wrote:
lvds wrote:If each desktop are all in .SFS independant files, that would not have any impact on the size of the iso :-)
That was already used in Archpup and will be in its continuation project alphaOS 7.

in DISTRO_SPECS I add this
....
DISTRO_ADRVSFS='extra_70.sfs'
DISTRO_BDRVSFS='desktop_*.sfs'
...
(off course init script needs adjucting for this to work)

those two sfs are optional; with just DISTRO_PUPPYSFS system boots to console,
with DISTRO_PUPPYSFS and DISTRO_ADRVSFS it startx Xorg with openbox window manager.

Default iso does not have DISTRO_BDRVSFS, but if it's present it will be loaded so that gives option for additional desktop.

You could make desktop_xfce.sfs desktop_gnome.sfs desktop_kde.sfs, and just switch between them, DISTRO_ADRVSFS has applications that can be used with any desktop.
That's exactly the idea !

Barry, please, tell us what you think about it ?

A lot of people could benefit from this and it would cost nothing to the weight of the distro.

Also, simargl, please can you explain how you set up woof build so to install a desktop (example with xfce or lxde or kde whatever) into BDRVSFS ? Is it done at woof build ? or do you build a SFS afterwhile ? and how do you create this SFS ?

Many thanks :-)

simargl

#24 Post by simargl »

.
Last edited by simargl on Sun 01 Sep 2013, 15:10, edited 1 time in total.

Pelo

freedom of desktop choice

#25 Post by Pelo »

Where is the problem : we have already desktops available in pet repository or SFS. That's work fine; Go on that way.
LXDE, XFCE, KDe, E17 .... You choose as you like. But keep all old versions available please (KDE 3XXX).

I sometime dress my distros with XFCE, but JWM must be kept as the default choice, in my opinion.

User avatar
lvds
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue 23 Jan 2007, 15:15
Location: Near the window

Re: freedom of desktop choice

#26 Post by lvds »

Pelo wrote:Where is the problem : we have already desktops available in pet repository or SFS. That's work fine;
The problem is it does not works fine :-)

That's why we need a hook into the official puppy release to link to whatever desktop we need instead of having a desktop built-in in puppy. There is no need to change the jwm/rox desktop that Barry loves. Keep it but into an SFS. Then we can release alternatives desktop official SFS files depending on the puppy release. Because some desktop SFS works into some release while they stop working elsewhere, and that is not documented: the end-user have to test and crash -> not good.

This would also allow builders to build much better desktops solutions. 8)

akash_rawal
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed 25 Aug 2010, 15:38
Location: ISM Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India

Re: freedom of desktop choice

#27 Post by akash_rawal »

lvds wrote: That's why we need a hook into the official puppy release to link to whatever desktop we need instead of having a desktop built-in in puppy. There is no need to change the jwm/rox desktop that Barry loves. Keep it but into an SFS. Then we can release alternatives desktop official SFS files depending on the puppy release. Because some desktop SFS works into some release while they stop working elsewhere, and that is not documented: the end-user have to test and crash -> not good.
I think I misunderstood you. You meant changing SFS files to change the current desktop environment?

That will only be an extra hassle for both the user and the developer.

As I already mentioned, lots of scripts need to be adjusted to make things work with a new desktop environment.

Bundling these changes in the desktop environment pet or sfs, as it is done now, breaks things whenever scripts change in incompatible way or the user makes changes to those scripts.

Ideally no pet or sfs package should clobber any file in the system.

Hence it is more beneficial to make the things modular so that all the adjustments can be made without changing any file. This will ensure that desktop environment pets and sfs will continue to work wherever there is binary compatibility. This will also reduce a lot of effort in creating those pets and sfs. (e.g. count the total no. of lines in the LXDE example at http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 561#703561)

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

#28 Post by sunburnt »

I had trouble with the original thought also.
It seemed to be a single "base SFS" file for all Puppies, which is impossible.

However I`ve suggested a Puppy stripped of all apps. except needed utilities.
And use only no-install apps.: SFS, RoxApp, or AppDir.
NO .pet or .tar.gz packages, as they fill up the Save file, no-install apps. don`t.

So apps. ( desktops, etc...) are easily added and removed.
.

Post Reply