Porteus-v1.0-rc1-x86_64 last call for testing

[Hamza]

@ Burninbush ,

All bugs/issues with Porteus v1 rc1 x86_64 MUST be reported on this thread ONLY

The bugs reports sections are only for last STABLE version.

Regards,

[Rava]

I don't understand your request.

Like I said "I hope I managed to phrase that above okay since I have at times some issues in phrasing such techno stuff in my non-native-tongue English."

Anyhow, I try again.

sda1: windows 7 boot NTFS
sda2: windows 7 and Porteus 1.0rc1 x86_64 on NTFS
sda3: W95 Ext'd (LBA)
sda4: Hidden HPFS/NTFS (messed up space, need to merge it with sda5 and therefore need to delete everything from sda5 at a time so I want/need a running linux other than on sda5)
sda5 ext3 (Porteus V08 for now)

Now, I always use the "always fresh" mode and only save what I want to be saved by hand, usually. But with rootcopy on NTFA that means all is globally read and writable, and that is a mess, security-wise.

So I hoped I can set it up like that:

Code: Select all

# cd /mnt/sda2/porteus
# rmdir rootcopy
# ln -s /mnt/sda2/porteus/rootcopy
# ls -l rootcopy
# lrwxrwxrwx 2 root root  92 Mar 30  2011 rootcopy-> /mnt/sda5/porteus/rootcopy

But like I said, that works well when I want to access /mnt/sda2/porteus/rootcopy in the running system, since it points me to /mnt/sda5/porteus/rootcopy

But when I boot Porteus 1.0 rc1 x86_64 it don't load any stuff from the rootcopy, since it seems that the symlink is broken at that time, probably due to /dev/sda2 not mounted or at least not accessible via /mnt/sda2

[Hamza]

Normally the symlinks works only on Linux File System.

[Rava]

Normally the symlinks works only on Linux File System.

Nope, NTFS was able to use symlinks, even only with a running XP, but XP lacked a system libraray or such for that.
At least with Windows 7 you do have symlinks:

Code: Select all

bash-4.1# pwd
/mnt/sda2
bash-4.1# ls -l
total 7318297
drwxrwxrwx 1 root root       4096 Apr 13 20:35 Boot
lrwxrwxrwx 2 root root         60 Jul 14  2009 Documents and Settings -> /mnt/sda2/Users
lrwxrwxrwx 2 root root         60 Jun 30  2010 Dokumente und Einstellungen -> /mnt/sda2/Users
drwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8192 Jul 31  2010 Program Files
drwxrwxrwx 1 root root      12288 Mar  9 02:02 Program Files (x86)
drwxrwxrwx 1 root root       8192 Nov  9 10:14 ProgramData
lrwxrwxrwx 2 root root         92 Jun 30  2010 Programme -> /mnt/sda2/Program Files

See?

[This is just some of the folders and none of the files in the root of sda2, just to demonstrate what I meant...]

[Hamza]

If you using the -f parameter , normally it will works fine!

Good Lucks , if it works , please report all details on the forum (if possible , open a new thread)

[Burninbush]

Re: Porteus-v1.0-rc1-x86_64 last call for testing

Postby Hamza » 21 Apr 2011, 11:25
@ Burninbush ,

All bugs/issues with Porteus v1 rc1 x86_64 MUST be reported on this thread ONLY

The bugs reports sections are only for last STABLE version.

Regards,

++++++++++++++++++

??? So I MUST? In this thread ONLY? How, pray tell, would I or anybody else know to post bug reports in a Development section? Even if I had somehow deduced that, how would I know that this particular thread was for bug reports?

Your pitbull attitude on the board is somewhat disturbing, Hamza. You'd have made a good Nazi.

[Hamza]

Your pitbull attitude on the board is somewhat disturbing, Hamza. You'd have made a good Nazi.

You don"t respect this rule.

12. No personal attacks - These forums are not a place for you to take cheap shots at somebody because he/she did something. Do that some place else (or better yet, get over it). You have been warned. Hopefully, this won't be much of a problem here.

I must warn you about the rules of the forum.

And, We must report all bugs on thread

An Example:
- If I reported a bug somewhere (not on this thread) on the forum about this version , maybe fanthom will not see the bug report , he hasn't much free time , and the bug will be not fixed, if someone has the same bug as you , this will make double post and double bug report.

Do you understand?

That's why , we want all bugs about Development version must reported in ONE thread.

[Ahau]

Allright, guys. We're all on the same team.

@Hamza-- burningbush was looking for this thread and couldn't find it. I directed him to it and merged the posts. No harm, no foul.

@burningbush -- Hamza can be overbearing about the rules, but he's coming from the right place, namely to keep order on the forum.

[Hamza]

@ burningbush , You have been warned for Personal Attacks.

If you apologize, I will cancel your warn.

Regards,

[Rava]

Hamza, burningbush, I hope you both can calm down and get together again...

I know Hamza is strict about the rules but he also accepts when he was wrong, just look at this post: http://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php? ... 2831#p2831
See, he can say sorry when he realized he was wrong (which does not happen often as I can say, but still)

And i agree with Hamza, the personal attack was not nice and I hope you can apologize for that. Maybe/hopefully I made it easier to you to say sorry by showing you that Hamza is able to do so in a somehow similar situation (without any hard words or personal attacks, that is, but we on a team should never go that far anyway...)

[Burninbush]

@burningbush -- Hamza can be overbearing about the rules, but he's coming from the right place, namely to keep order on the forum. >Ahau

++++++++++++++

Overbearing, ya think? I'd describe his manner as like the behavior of a person with ADD.

Fanthom, are you monitoring this? I urge you to get your dog under control.

[Hamza]

Overbearing, ya think? I'd describe his manner as like the behavior of a person with ADD.

Fanthom, are you monitoring this? I urge you to get your dog under control.

You don't respect this rule again.

12. No personal attacks - These forums are not a place for you to take cheap shots at somebody because he/she did something. Do that some place else (or better yet, get over it). You have been warned. Hopefully, this won't be much of a problem here.

You have been warned once again

If you have any problems with the rules of forum , you can suggest your rules to Admins.

We have some rules to respect for live on this forum

And , this conversation is offtopic

Posted after 1 hour 10 minutes 41 second:
I have removed your warnings (by me) , if you continue to break the rules of the forum. I'll make a report on you to Admins.

This is your last chance!

Regards,

@ All others users , I apologize for this conversation.

[agreimann]

How close are we to release of the actual Porteus 1? There are two things I would like to mention, as I saw this thread:

1) Please give me about a week, as this next week I will need to work on important work I need to get done by the 29th, which means I will have to postpone building, and most likely won't have the installer finished, probably until May 1.
2) There is a serious bug in Porteus Release Candidate 1 64-bit that *needs* to be addressed. My flash media is not being detected correctly, and as a result, it can cause failure to properly boot. I have looked into the details (e.g. checking MD5, rewriting installation, etc.), and verified what I'm stating. Full details are in the "boot error..." post in Development.

[fanthom]

@Rava
"I think it is because at that stage of booting Porteus only mounted the source partition (sda2 in my case) and not the one with the rootcopy folder the symlinks gives (sda5)"
probably could be done but i see no point since in rc-1 you have an option to specify rootcopy folder by "rootcopy=" cheatcode (please read the changelog!)

@Burninbush
"I wonder if your create-a-dat-file script is formatting the file after creating it?"
just checked and yes - all should be ok. maybe dat file got corrupted while copying to pendrive? or maybe it's xfs problem in 2.6.38 kernel as reported by Rava?

"There's a curious message [from init?] about checking the changes file for posix compatibility -- which I thought had been deprecated for late releases of Porteus."
it's still there - if posix test passes, then nothing happens. if fails then save.dat must be created or booting continue in Always Fresh.

"Another small issue, I resized the task bar smaller, and so far the system has refused to resize the icons at the left side. Also lost the wallpaper somehow. "
hehe - i was focusing on maximizing the taskbar and never tried to minimize it will check it - thanks.

"How, pray tell, would I or anybody else know to post bug reports in a Development section? Even if I had somehow deduced that, how would I know that this particular thread was for bug reports? "
it sounds obvious (at least to me) that Development section is for developing of something (putting suggestions, reporting problems). Anyway gonna add extra info to tittles of the subforum to avoid confusion.

"You'd have made a good Nazi."
please watch your language

"Fanthom, are you monitoring this? I urge you to get your dog under control."
i wont tolerate any kind of personal attacks on this board. i'm willing to give you temporary ban if that happens once again (yes - you can call me "nazi").
i got your point and will have a word with Hamza.

BTW: It's Easter time so @all please chill out a bit.

@agreimann
answered already in another thread

[Hamza]

2) There is a serious bug in Porteus Release Candidate 1 64-bit that *needs* to be addressed. My flash media is not being detected correctly, and as a result, it can cause failure to properly boot. I have looked into the details (e.g. checking MD5, rewriting installation, etc.), and verified what I'm stating. Full details are in the "boot error..." post in Development.

Have you tested to boot with delay= cheatcode?