myDSL Extensions for HD-Install
Forum: myDSL Extensions (deprecated)
Topic: myDSL Extensions for HD-Install
started by: gui
Posted by gui on Aug. 31 2004,22:20
I have boot methods:Live CD with a lot of dsl extensions working very well and now I'm trying again HD-Install Some extensios works fine others do not at all Is there any way to know which ones can work and which ones do not?
Posted by ripcrd6 on Sep. 03 2004,19:46
Read the testing thread. Also, any .dsl in the stable area should work OK. If it's in testing, then you take your chances.
Posted by mikshaw on Sep. 03 2004,20:15
As was said in other threads, extensions are made to be used with a liveCD. They're compiled on non-DSL machines, which means there is a greater chance that they won't work perfectly, and they often have parts removed to save space.Best idea for a HD install is either use apt-get or install a compiler.
Posted by Alisdair Kelly on Sep. 04 2004,15:29
I'm going to add a hearty "I agree" to the notion that it's probably best NOT to use the dsl extensions for an hdd installation of DSL. While it's nice to have nearly instant access to an application via the MyDSL button, you are much better off using apt-get or compiling your own if you're running from the harddrive.BTDT, now on my fourth installation of DSL to hdd after screwing things up royally the other day.
Posted by ke4nt1 on Sep. 04 2004,15:48
| Quote |
| BTDT, now on my fourth installation of DSL to hdd after screwing things up royally the other day. |
Isn't it nice that your not doing this with XP !
After reinstalling your OS, then d/l updates, patches,
then drivers, then adware/spyware/virus detectors, then firewalls,
your programs, then update your programs, your personal files, etc...
With DSL, reinstalling to HD is a 10 minute fix !
All my other stuff I keep on another partition..
Makes updating/upgrading/reinstalling s m o o t h & e a s y ...
73
ke4nt
Posted by Alisdair Kelly on Sep. 04 2004,17:24
Amen to not being on Number 4 re-install of XP!From start to finish this morning was I did the re-install, update, and upgrade plus grabbing selected applications was about 25 minutes. And *much* easier than going thru all the motions with a Wintel box.
After a few more edits of things, I'll make a clone of the installation and be ready for the next time I shoot myself in both feet
Posted by ke4nt1 on Sep. 04 2004,18:49
| Quote |
| From start to finish this morning was I did the re-install, update, and upgrade plus grabbing selected applications was about 25 minutes. |
I follow the re-install and the apt-get update part of your post...
What are you doing with the " update" part ?
Are you running "apt-get update" ?
Are you running it with your sources set to "unstable" or "testing" ?
Even if your leave your sources.lst as "stable" , I gotta ask,
Why ?
Do you have a special need for the additional packages it installs?
I run LiveCD, USBkey, Frugal, and HDInstalls on various computers, and
I never run "apt-get update" .. never needed to..
And since I run my HDInstall as user DSL, most all the .dsl and .tar.gz
files in the repository actually do work fine for me as installs
in my HDInstalled filesystems.
I'm just wondering if the "upgrade" could be causing some of the problems
we see in the forums, since DSL is NEVER TESTED with the "upgraded"
and/or new packages provided by "apt-get upgrade" with any of the options.
( stable, testing, unstable, experimental )
Had to ask..
73
ke4nt
Posted by Alisdair Kelly on Sep. 04 2004,21:39
| Quote (ke4nt1 @ Sep. 04 2004,14:49) | ||
I follow the re-install and the apt-get update part of your post... What are you doing with the " update" part ? Are you running "apt-get update" ? Are you running it with your sources set to "unstable" or "testing" ? Even if your leave your sources.lst as "stable" , I gotta ask, Why ? Do you have a special need for the additional packages it installs? I run LiveCD, USBkey, Frugal, and HDInstalls on various computers, and I never run "apt-get update" .. never needed to.. And since I run my HDInstall as user DSL, most all the .dsl and .tar.gz files in the repository actually do work fine for me as installs in my HDInstalled filesystems. I'm just wondering if the "upgrade" could be causing some of the problems we see in the forums, since DSL is NEVER TESTED with the "upgraded" and/or new packages provided by "apt-get upgrade" with any of the options. ( stable, testing, unstable, experimental ) Had to ask.. 73 ke4nt |
I'm using DSL 0.71 as a base for my hdd install. Thus to get some of the more current versions/builds of some frequently used applications, I've used apt-get update and apt-get upgrade.
In a thread elsewhere some time in June, a far more knowledgable Linux hand indicated to me that a combination of stable and testing can be a risky situation. I thought about simply using the Debian Sarge installer this morning, but used what I have been having success with instead. I may live to regret the decision, or I may learn something new.
I can report that using apt-get to grab the xscreensaver ver 4.16 has it working better than I had it when I'd used the xscreensaver.dsl.
What I've added has been the testing version of Samba 3.06, LinNeighborhood, Xscreensaver 4.16. Xcdroast 0.98Alpha. Upgraded several other programs like cdrecord/mkisofs and fluxbox to the most recent versions. Samba 3.06 *may* help with some of my network problems since it uses encrypted passwords like the Windows boxen on my LAN. Had little joy with the stable version getting the Wintel boxes to 'see' the NixBox via Neighborhood Network. LinNeighborhood worked fine to access the Winders shares.
99% of the time I operate as a user. Didn't really have any problems that I could identify as coming from using the dsl extensions on the hdd install. Had several tarballs fail to load when grabbing new themes for fluxbox though. The way that I've been doing things is an experiment and exercise in learning Linux.