iB::Topic::How can we improve our .dsl extension files?

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » MyDSL Extensions » myDSL Extensions (deprecated) » How can we improve our .dsl extension files?

		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: (5) </ [1] 2 3 4 5 >/

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

Topic: How can we improve our .dsl extension files?, Discussion on .dsl extension building.

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

ke4nt1

Group: Members
Posts: 2329
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: June 10 2004,03:13

I have been paying close attention to many threads and posts about ".dsl" extensions, ".ci" files, and ".tar.gz" files for DSL ...
I have looked inside most all of the ".dsl" and ".tar.gz" files submitted so far ...

My hope is that this thread will answer several questions, and offer some further input from users and creators alike about
what would be the "proper" or "most efficient" way to make ".dsl" and ".tar.gz" files for all systems and users of DSL ...

I personally have had help and assistance from everyone that I have requested help from, and many thanks to all.
During DSL version 0.7.0 release was my first attempt at writing any type of file for a linux system, ever...
and I didn't have any idea about what I was doing, short of emulating someone else's method or style ...

At this point, while I'm familiar with many of the terms and methods of using extensions to add to the DSL base,
I'm still unsure of WHY I should do, or not do, certain things, when I am working on a new addition to DSL.
I will list several of them here, and await suggestions from others..

1. When should I choose to use a .tar.gz, instead of a .dsl ?

2. What advantage does a .tar.gz offer over a .dsl, and WHY?

3. Should we always try to remove all unnecessary files from
our .dsl and .tar.gz builds, like doc, AUTHORS, man files,
README's, to keep the .dsl size to a minimum?
(helps save RAM ?) or should SOME be left intact?

4. Does leaving out these files harm the AUTHOR of the
program, or break the GPL for distributing a program
without giving the true AUTHOR recognition for his work?

5. Are there any directories that a .dsl file should try to avoid
writing to, or directories that are preferred to be used?

6. Same question as above, but with .tar.gz files?

7. What about including Icons for the desktop in our .dsl's?
Is that preferred or just a bonus?

8. The ".ci" files are amazing at what they do, but what
determines if an extension build should ever be one?
( whether it is shared with DSL, or used at home only? )

Clear answers to these questions will surely help a number of
us who are aiming to contribute to DSL, and help encourage
others to participate with the incredible group of users here.

73
ke4nt

roberts

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: June 10 2004,04:52

I will try to answer your questions. Recall that myDSL was made to give liveCD users an easy way to add applications. It was designed to end the debate of how big should DSL be. If you want to 64MB system, a 210MB, or any size that you want. With myDSL you can have DSL "your way" Also, it is easy to grab a new version of DSL and your custom apps will carry forward. No need to re-install and re-setup icons, and menus.

The 0.7. release was made for liveCD. Now 0.7.1 also allows hard drive installed users to have access to the extensions..

1. When should I choose to use a .tar.gz, instead of a .dsl ?

When the files can load into an existing un-modified liveCD environment, i.e., the default writeable areas of /opt /home/damnsmall Many program load into these areas. It has very little impact to the system. They have actually been around for a long time. It was made with the intension of having "shared" apps. This benefited hard drive. Instead of each user have a copy of firefox it was shared among the users in a multi-user system. Now .tar.gz is ideal for factoring your backup.tar.gz for a more personal myDSL system. See below for more explanation. This idea came to me by reading Rapidweather's posts of how he factored out his firefox from his backup.tar.gz so that his backup would fit on a floppy.

2. What advantage does a .tar.gz offer over a .dsl, and WHY?

The concept of a dsl file came to me when I was implementing cbagger01 synaptic script. Actually I had used his script in the past and saw the impact of using i-nodes on low ram machines. A 32 MB test machine would quit because of i-node usage. As I implemented cbagger's script I tried to get the most mileage out of it. I could see the furstration of trying to backup the deb files from apt cache and the fact that there is no icon nor menu item. So why not have these deb files or any collection of files be cleaned up some to be an integrated part of DSL. These files need the modified "writeable" directory structure in oder to work. Same as for Synaptic script.

3. Should we always try to remove all unnecessary files from our .dsl and .tar.gz builds, like doc, AUTHORS, man files, README's, to keep the .dsl size to a minimum? (helps save RAM ?) or should SOME be left intact?

As for the other files they are taking up ram space. Remember DSL supports many low ram machines. Also to be consistenent with the existing DSL files, most of the man pages, docs, and debian menu files have been deleted.

4. Does leaving out these files harm the AUTHOR of the program, or break the GPL for distributing a program without giving the true AUTHOR recognition for his work?

I am very big on giving credit to the author who creates software of any kind. If you see lic files then they should stay. Never remove author's name or comments even from scripts that you may have found useful. These butched scripts often show up on other fourms and could cause confusion.

5. Are there any directories that a .dsl file should try to avoid writing to, or directories that are preferred to be used?

Mostly these are Synaptic installed files. It is the prgram's author that is determing this. Using dpkg -L packname to start your collection of files to make your dsl.

6. Same question as above, but with .tar.gz files?

As stated above the tar.gz can really only be written to /opt and /home/damnsmall. Otherwise you are assuming somebody has already loaded a dsl file and has modified the file system. Their intended use is for factoring out parts of your current backup.tar.gz. For instance I have a myPrinter.tar.gz, myXsetup.tar.gz, myWireless.tar.gz. With creative use of these files you can make a totally hands free boot up cdrom such that everything to ready to use. Plus you backup.tar.gz is now only actual files and not system setting etc. Even low ram users can benefit from these types of files.

7. What about including Icons for the desktop in our .dsl's? Is that preferred or just a bonus?

Some program such as games might have too many icons to be practical. It is a matter of taste. Would you want you desktop to be covered with all the ace-of-penguins game icons?

8. The ".ci" files are amazing at what they do, but what determines if an extension build should ever be one? ( whether it is shared with DSL, or used at home only? )

These type of extensions are mounted at boot time. Therefore long ago DSL made the /opt directory writeable for shared apps in a multi-user hard drive installed environment. Now if the apps is self contained under a mount point then this type would be preferred as they have very little impact. I have run openoffice.ci on a 128MB machine. Many apps may be able to convert to this style. Many times it is more work to make shell wrappers and extend library path search. But the efforts certainly show results.

I purposely started with what I thought was the easiest type for a user to make. Recall the initial web page showed firefox.tar.gz as an example of a user created extension. It was just tarred up after the download script. Then because of cbaggers contribution of the synaptic script, it was a natural extension to have extensions be able to write across the filesystem as Synaptic does. I have been running .ci since April. I held back with their release so as not to confuse the effort.

I must say I am very happy with the users contributions. This is an exciting time for DSL users. Thanks to all who have contributed and I look forward to more to try. They are after all just a collection of files. All the code to make them work is part of the DSL system.

clivesay

Group: Guests
Posts: 935
Joined: Dec. 2003

Posted: June 12 2004,18:49

I think this has been touched on a little but, is there a possibility of having a mydsl script for the HD install enthusiast?

Say you have a HD install of DSL and a cool new extension comes along. You download the extension to your root directory and run a script similar to the mydsl script at boot to install the extension. Then you could delete the .dsl file from the root dir.

Is this feasible? I am clueless when it comes to development so I am just throwing the idea out there.

ke4nt1

Group: Members
Posts: 2329
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: June 12 2004,19:02

Starting with 0.7.1, you can type in a terminal, from user damnsmall..
mydsl-load
type inthe location of your new extension in the box, for ex:
/mnt/hda4/storage/mplayer.dsl
and it will load your new extension, and make it available to run.

You can keep your extensions on another drive/partition/location, and
when 0.7.2 comes along, simply re-install to HD the new DSL, keeping
your backups, .dsl files, and so forth still available to use and restore from...

So Cool :cool: