Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
Pages: (10) </ 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Two new applications, Data aand graphic visualization programs< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
lucky13 Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007
Posted: Mar. 02 2008,22:46 QUOTE

Quote
Crazy idea:
1. What if '.uci' extensions were writable?
2. What if '.unc' extensions were changed to write only to '/opt'. This would be a complement to '.uci' extensions.
The '.unc' can write into a '.uci' directory. But it can't write into itself (self-referencing is impossible).
3. Lastly, we could retain the '.tar.gz' extensions - for extensions that only write to '/opt/bin'.

I meant to add in my previous response I wanted to think more about these before passing judgment. I've given them more thought.

I'm neutral on the first point although I see limited usefulness to it. If one wants writable extension directories in /opt, one can already use tar.gz now (or even UNC, though I don't know why one would do that since it seems it goes against what unionfs is all about). What I wrote previously about issues of overlays on mount points (i.e., UCI directories) still concerns me.

I don't care for the second point at all. The whole idea behind using filesystem overlays like unionfs is to write across the operating system. Application extensions aren't the only thing for which UNCs are useful. They can overwrite /home and /etc, making things like configuration files portable or even easier to try out (I've been using overlays similarly for "portable" settings between different distros, remasters, etc., so I can carry over WPA and other settings and keep them in the directory structure I normally use).

As I wrote above, you can already compile a UNC to install to /opt. It seems that it would be redundant to what's already in UCI. It also begs the question why you would need to have unionfs at all for it in the first place and give up the leverage it affords of laying files and directories over a traditional directory structure. I don't want it to be limited to /opt.

The third option makes some sense but I don't think it's practical. If you require compiling executables to /opt/bin, what about all the share and lib files in self-contained apps? Those don't belong in a bin directory. If you'll end up with things installing in /opt/share, etc., I'll pass. I'd rather continue to use links between executables and /opt/bin.

Personally, I'd prefer to see tar.gz deprecated altogether in favor of UCI and, likewise, deprecate DSL in favor of UNC. I know that's not likely to happen -- especially the DSL-UNC thing because some users will choose to not use unionfs. But to make things more nomadic, I think it makes more sense to use overlays and compressed/(un)mountable applications.


--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
roberts Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003
Posted: Mar. 02 2008,23:47 QUOTE

Quote (lucky13 @ Mar. 02 2008,14:46)

Personally, I'd prefer to see tar.gz deprecated altogether in favor of UCI and, likewise, deprecate DSL in favor of UNC. I know that's not likely to happen -- especially the DSL-UNC thing because some users will choose to not use unionfs. But to make things more nomadic, I think it makes more sense to use overlays and compressed/(un)mountable applications.

That is exactly how I wanted to simplify extensions.
When I proposed doing such, I got much grief, as some, perhaps many, refuse to use unionfs. They boot using legacy option.
I still think it is a better solution.
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
curaga Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 2163
Joined: Feb. 2007
Posted: Mar. 03 2008,15:03 QUOTE

The biggest reason to not use unionfs is that it's too buggy. I thought that's why unc extensions aren't unmounted?

.tar.gz could be replaced by .uci IMO, but it would make looking in on non-DSL systems harder.


--------------
There's no such thing as life. Those mean little jocks invented it ;)
-
Windows is not a virus. A virus does something!
Back to top
Profile PM 
humpty Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 655
Joined: Sep. 2005
Posted: Mar. 03 2008,15:03 QUOTE

i only suggested renaming the .tar.gz  because in the rest of the
linux world a .tar.gz is just, an innocent tarball.

and although i don't use an hd-install, it can get confusing when someone who does, plans to make an app for hd-install and wants
to call it that.
Back to top
Profile PM 
roberts Offline





Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003
Posted: Mar. 03 2008,16:06 QUOTE

The .tar.gz ias used in MyDSL extension is simply a tarball.
It does nothing more than lay down files as in any tarball.
Since both menu and icon are optional there is nothing unique about a tar.gz.

I have never seen any standard convention specifying relative or absolute pathing within a tarball. I always preview (ztf) to see which pathing was used in any tarball that I am going to install. And that is why I wrote xtar.lua the way I did, automatic preview.
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
48 replies since Feb. 04 2008,19:14 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (10) </ 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >/
reply to topic new topic new poll
Quick Reply: Two new applications

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code