On 06/07/17 17:12, bill-auger wrote:
>
> ok cool i thought and openrc ISO would be interesting to ppl - as i
> said though, the openrc ISO is not working yet but i will keep you
> guys posted
>
> i chose LXDE mostly because it is easy to configure using flat-files
> and all - because i wanted it to be easy to boot the CD and make
> customiztions (like the theme) and then easily transfer those change
> back outside into the build tree - many people do not care for LXDE
> but that is not important - i am working to streamline the entire
> process so that many WM/DE combinations are available - LXDE for now
> is a good compromise on simplicity and feature set while developing -
> it sertainly does not need to be "The" parabola desktop
>
>> I am not 100% sure about the installer. Can the ISO be built
>> without?
Again, I think these are/were excellent choices. I like LXDE 'coz it's
mostly C and I like OpenRC, because of it's cross platform advantages
to/for other OSes as well as Parabola such as BSD and also it's
compatibility with System V scripts.
OpenRC is also written in C and sh, which are generally portable and
appear on most systems (common), but are also better for bootstrapping
from non-gcc C-only compilers, if one were to appear that could compile
the linux kernel (it could reduce the trusting trust problem).
Perhaps these weren't the reasons you had in mind, I don't know, but you
seem to have made good choices as far as things go.
>
> i am not clear what you are asking here - as i said, currently i did
> not yet put the calamares on the CD - so it is not only possible, but
> that is indeed how the current demo is at this moment - the calamares
> installer is going to be just another package so can be easily
> installed or not - that is actually the reson i did not put it in -
> because i would like to get that package into the repos first - but
> without and installer you only have a liveCD environment with no
> persistence - i dont see how it would make any difference if the
> installer were left out - one does not need to run the installer just
> because it is there - maybe i am mis-understanding the question
Ok, great.
The reason for asking whether the ISO could be created without the
installer was because I am not to keen on CMake and C++. I think
everything where possible should be written in C (only half jokingly)
and I prefer shell and GNU Makefiles. But that's only my personal
preference.
What I am using to install at the moment is a script I modified and
found on the interwebs, in combination with the CLI iso.
I may send it to you, although I don't know the licence. You could
probably search for the text online if you cared or if it was important
enough.
... let me find that USB drive,
Josh
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
