ext4 - installer still telling me: Partition filesystem not supported

[carsti]

Hi,

I tried installing PorteuX 1.7

Worked great when using a FAT32 partition on a MBR formatted USB Stick. Ran into minor problems, because I couldn't make porteux-installer-for-linux.run executable on a FAT32 partition.

But using: sudo /bin/bash porteux-installer-for-linux.run did the trick. I also added a .dat file and it saved my changes successfully.

Now I wanted to go full ext4 and skip the .dat file. So I formatted the USB Stick again: MBR with ext4.

When I execute porteux-installer-for-linux.run it tells me:

Code: Select all

/media/carsti/PorteuX 1.7/boot# ./porteux-installer-for-linux.run 
Creating directory /tmp/porteux-installer
Verifying archive integrity...  100%   MD5 checksums are OK. All good.
Uncompressing PorteuX Installer  100%  
Partition filesystem not supported

Why is the filesystem not supported? It is ext4, so why?

Any idea what is going on?

[bour59]

Hi either your usb Is all formatted fat32 an you need a .dat file to save your changes
either you need a usb with a small partition as fat32 where you copy the EFI and boot folders and
a second partition as ext4 where you copy porteus folder.
add in porteus config the changes=/porteus cheatcode
and run the installer for linux
good luck!

[porteux]

@carsti, it seems you're running the installer from another distro (Mint?). Although this should work, this scenario hasn't been tested exhaustively. Could you try this version?

The only difference in this version is that in the case of error it should output some debug information. Please, after the error paste here the content of /tmp/porteux-installer-debug.txt

Thanks!

[carsti]

@carsti, it seems you're running the installer from another distro (Mint?). Although this should work, this scenario hasn't been tested exhaustively. Could you try this version?

The only difference in this version is that in the case of error it should output some debug information. Please, after the error paste here the content of /tmp/porteux-installer-debug.txt

Thanks!

Thanks. I did as you asked. No error output. The output is identical to the old installer.

[carsti]

On a different note, that install.txt would really need more explicit info. I just give on example:

"If your media storage is formatted with a Linux filesystem
(e.g. EXT4 or XFS), before the first boot make sure the folder
/porteux has 'guest' ownership (i.e. non-root) otherwise changes
will not be automatically saved."

Why not write out the command line to achieve this?

Also I ran into many issues that are related to "permissions". If I use FAT32, I cannot set porteux-installer-for-linux.run as executable. Why not write the command line on what to do if this isn't possible? Something like /bin/bash "porteux-installer-for-linux.run". Also there were issues where I didn't execute the installer with "sudo" but without and it asked me for the password but than wrote "authentication failure". Probably it was expecting some "root" account executing this or something, I don't know. But my user account has admin rights.

Anyways. Much trial and error that a better install.txt could at least partially improve. I know one cannot test or catch all the corner cases. It is an impressive project!! Thanks!

[porteux]

Thanks. I did as you asked. No error output. The output is identical to the old installer.

It seems you missed this part:

after the error paste here the content of /tmp/porteux-installer-debug.txt

[carsti]

Thanks. I did as you asked. No error output. The output is identical to the old installer.

It seems you missed this part:

after the error paste here the content of /tmp/porteux-installer-debug.txt

Hehe. Thanks.

Code: Select all

installer path: /media/carsti/PorteuX
script path: /tmp/porteux-installer
partition name: loop0p1
dev partition: /dev/loop0p1
media name: loop0
partition Number: 1
partition mount point: /media/carsti/PorteuX
mount details: /dev/loop0p1 /media/carsti/PorteuX iso9660 ro,nosuid,nodev,relatime,nojoliet,check=s,map=n,blocksize=2048,uid=1000,gid=1000,dmode=500,fmode=400,iocharset=utf8 0 0
partition filesystem: iso9660
partition table type: dos
error code: 1
system: Linux carsti-NUC8i5BEH 6.8.0-48-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Fri Sep 27 14:04:52 UTC 2024 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
media storage partition scheme:
Disk /dev/loop0: 434 MiB, 455081984 bytes, 888832 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x447edc19

Device       Boot Start    End Sectors  Size Id Type
/dev/loop0p1 *        0 888831  888832  434M 17 Hidden HPFS/NTFS

[carsti]

I tried it again. I had a ZIP file mounted. Maybe that confused the installer. I unmounted the ZIP file.

sudo ./porteux-installer-for-linux.run

Code: Select all

installer path: /media/carsti/PorteuX
script path: /tmp/porteux-installer
partition name: 
dev partition: /dev/
media name: 
partition Number: 
partition mount point: 
mount details: 
partition filesystem: 
partition table type: 
error code: 1
system: Linux carsti-NUC8i5BEH 6.8.0-48-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Fri Sep 27 14:04:52 UTC 2024 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
media storage partition scheme:

[carsti]

When I run without sude, it tells me the following:

Code: Select all

./porteux-installer-for-linux.run
Creating directory /tmp/porteux-installer
Verifying archive integrity...  100%   MD5 checksums are OK. All good.
Uncompressing PorteuX Installer  100%  
Please enter root password:
Password: 
su: Authentication failure

[porteux]

@carsti, I uploaded a new installer (same link) that should work with any user as long as it belongs to sudo/root group. Thanks for the feedback

But it seems you're trying to install PorteuX in a different way that might not work. The partition in your first attempt is ISO9660, which means it's read-only -- tip: this won't work.

Let's start from the beginning, using the standard method:

1. make sure you have a storage unit with 2 partitions only: FAT32 and EXT/NTFS (you need to choose one -- in case of NTFS, automatic save session won't work, but you can use .dat container or other ways to preserve your settings). Example: FAT32 and NTFS
2. copy /porteux from the ISO into the EXT/NTFS partition
3. copy /boot and /EFI from the ISO into the FAT32 partition
4. go to /boot in your FAT32 partition (not the ISO!) and run the installer -- it should work.

Finally, reboot and make sure your BIOS is set to boot from the storage unit where PorteuX is installed.

If your second partition is EXT (or any other POSIX type) and you want automatic save session, you need to make sure your user has write permissions. Considering the default user 'guest', you can first boot into Always Fresh and run this:

Code: Select all

chown -R guest:users "$PORTDIR"/porteux/

(I'm working on an automated way of setting these permissions.)

[Ed_P]

I do not recommend the old NTFS format for USB drives Too much overhead. I recommend exFAT, especially if the drive is large. And for the boot partition FAT32, UEFI doesn't support any other format.

[porteux]

@Ed_P, exFAT has 2 major flaws:

1. it doesn't support symlinks
2. it's very susceptible to file corruption (examples here)

Not to mention the large cluster size.

I do not recommend it.

[Ed_P]

it doesn't support symlinks

Does FAT32? symlinks are supported in save.dat files on exFAT drives.

it's very susceptible to file corruption (examples here)

It doesn't sound that susceptible to corruption in your link.

With that being said though, if you have good power (no random blackouts) and a high quality disk then data corruption is unlikely.
:
:
I've been running a three partition dual boot - Windows / Debian / Exfat - for over five years and I've never seen any corruption.

Things USB drives are susceptible to, regardless of format: toilets, washing machines, clothes driers, coaches, dogs, tissues, .... Which is why backups are useful.

the large cluster size

Less reads/writes executing/creating apps needed = faster drive.

[porteux]

Does FAT32?

The comparison was against NTFS, which supports symlinks.

It doesn't sound that susceptible to corruption in your link.

You take one example and applies to the majority? Look how many people there are online complaining about file corruption using exFAT.

Less reads/writes executing/creating apps needed = faster

Not sure if you can demonstrate that, but anyway I would rather have symlinks and file integrity than just performance (again, unverified).

[Ed_P]

Look how many people there are online complaining about file corruption using exFAT.

Look how many people are using exFAT and not complaining. No USB drives made in the past 24 years have been made with NTFS.