[kinda solved] truecrypt V7 and Porteus V0.8

[Rava]

I created a module for Porteus V0.8 (PAE version) by using tgz2lzm truecrypt-7.0-i486-1alien.tgz.
So far truecrypt seems to run okay as non-root-user, but it fails to format the container file - it gives an error message "sudo not found".

Has anyone experienced similar with truecrypt?

I currently cannot start Porteus V1.0 beta (since I only have it on the same machine that runs the V08 PAE ) but I am quite sure the 1.0 beta also only has su and no sudo, or am I mistaken?

So far I just re-start it all as root and I will put in here an update if that helps the issue, but it is not the solution I would like...

//edit
Okay, according to http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/TrueCrypt

Truecrypt needs root privileges to work: this procedure will allow normal users to use it, also giving writing permissions to mounted volumes.
First of all, you must have sudo installed.

So it seems, for now I either need to add sudo to Porteus or run truecrypt as root...

[brokenman]

Have you tried adding a symlink sudo to point to su?

[Rava]

Have you tried adding a symlink sudo to point to su?

Code: Select all

# apropos symlink
symlink: nothing appropriate

You mean more than a simple "ln -s su sudo" I presume?

Code: Select all

[as root: ]
# cd /bin/
bash-4.1# ln -s su sudo

[as quest:]
# sudo konqeror
Unknown id: konqeror

[brokenman]

nope. if you can't modify the part that looks for sudo ... just point it to su. ln -s /bin/su /usr/bin/sudo
Might be worth a try. Here are some other options.

Edit the kmenu item that starts it with one of these:
su - -c "truecrypt"
kdesu truecrypt

[Rava]

nope. if you can't modify the part that looks for sudo ... just point it to su. ln -s /bin/su /usr/bin/sudo

What is the difference to my version?

Syntax is ln -s target link-name...

Your link is in another folder while mine is in the same, but that should not make the difference?
Or does it?

Currently I run Slax 6.1.2 and so cannot try the other suggestion, but I will when I am back to either Porteus V08 or 1.0 beta.

[brokenman]

What is the difference to my version?

It will depend on what directory you issue the command from. If you are in /root for example and issue your version then no programs will recognize them. My version ensures that both su and sudo are in your current $PATH. (echo $PATH)

Shouldn't matter what OS you are in ... just activate your truecrypt module then right click on kmenu and edit the item, changing it's command to kdesudo truecrypt. When you start it up, it should require root password and then you will be good to go.

[Rava]

Shouldn't matter what OS you are in ... just activate your truecrypt module then right click on kmenu and edit the item, changing it's command to kdesudo truecrypt. When you start it up, it should require root password and then you will be good to go.

When I run 1.0 beta again I will create a version with most of the KDE stuff removed (a revamped version for 1.0 with the changed modules so you can more easily cut out all KDE stuff and still have all dependencies and such for LXDE still in it would be neat, but it seems that will take some time...

At least I presume fanthom already created such a version fro himself since he told us about the changed module orders and logic...

[Hamza]

Please respect the rules with [Solved] part in the title.

[Rava]

Please respect the rules with [Solved] part in the title.

Then I either have to remove the "solved"... since ut is not really solved so far. Or I keep it like that.

Since it is not solved like it should.

Any suggestions?

[brokenman]

I think Ahau is creating a 'skin and bones' version of beta ... maybe you could wait for that and then add lxde requirements.

[Rava]

I think Ahau is creating a 'skin and bones' version of beta ... maybe you could wait for that and then add lxde requirements.

Skin and bones version sounds great...

Anyhow, slightly off topic: I created a fix for SP1 for V1.0 beta - fixing 2 errors in activate script.
Now I wonder if I should upload that and put an info in the 1.0beta 64 bit thread?

[Ahau]

brokenman wrote:
I think Ahau is creating a 'skin and bones' version of beta ... maybe you could wait for that and then add lxde requirements.

What I have right now would be pretty painful for daily use, unless your hardware is more than a decade old. I've eliminated xorg, and am using Xvesa instead, which is a self-contained X-server. It has no accelleration, so scrolling through text and internet pages is rather jumpy. The good news is that it loads to icewm in 10 seconds on my machine Adding LXDE would be relatively easy, I'd just add the module from beta and run slackyd -u and slackyd -d to find missing dependencies.

That said, if your machine is newer than 10 years, you'd probably be better off leaving xorg in place, pulling KDE, and finding any missing dependencies, as you suggested. If I continue my project (uncertain for now, it's mostly a sandbox for me to learn linux), I plan on adding a lightweight xorg server, but I really don't know if I'll be able to make something light enough to warrant dropping the standard porteus module.

Anyhow, slightly off topic: I created a fix for SP1 for V1.0 beta - fixing 2 errors in activate script.
Now I wonder if I should upload that and put an info in the 1.0beta 64 bit thread?

Yes, please do.

[brokenman]

Please pass the fix onto fanthom or myself. I believe fanthom is making a change in activate script to combat an aufs bug. The fixes are welcome (very), i'd just like to make sure they don't cross the same ground as eachother.

[Rava]

Please pass the fix onto fanthom or myself. I believe fanthom is making a change in activate script to combat an aufs bug. The fixes are welcome (very), i'd just like to make sure they don't cross the same ground as eachother.

Okay... I uploaded the SP1b in the "Porteus-v1.0-beta-x86_64 is ready " thread... Then fanthom uploaded SP2 just shortly after.
But I could PM you the lines I changed anyway, but I not found the same error in SP2 and therefore not created a SP2b...

[brokenman]

Ok, all sorted. I thought it would be the case that SP2 fixed the activate prob.