removing an extension
Forum: myDSL Extensions (deprecated)
Topic: removing an extension
started by: ceicke
Posted by ceicke on Sep. 06 2005,14:23Hi!
I have installed the XFree86.dsl extension and now I would like to remove it again. Is there a simple way to determine which files were added by the package?
Posted by adssse on Sep. 06 2005,14:36'Uninstalling' an extension depends on what kind of install you have done. If you have a frugal install, you can simply delete the extension and reboot. If you have done a hd installation, I dont know of any way to uninstall it except to find out all the files changed and unchange/delete them. I believe there has been some talk of a script to uninstall, but I dont believe anything is finished.
Posted by undertow on Sep. 10 2005,20:57*dont try this at home - not quite as easy as i thought. see next posting*
i started digging around and the basics of it don't look very hard. If somebody wants to knock out a little bash script for this, i think we could finally say we have an uninstaller!
removing _all_ files installed by either a .dsl or a tar.gz is as easy as being root, cding to / and running:
better yet, you could do this:
and then get rid of the .dsl and simply do a
xargs does everything. you can cat the remove.list and then pipe that to an 'xargs find' and also determine which files already exist and ask the user if they want to back them up for a rollback later...although i didn't find any instances of this with the packages i tried...
It could go something like:
cat package contents > remove.list
cat remove.list | xargs find > $files
prompt user: 'make a backup of $files?'
if yes, cp $files > /home/dsl/rollback/
(did this all on a frugal 1.5 install)
Posted by undertow on Sep. 10 2005,23:09ive jumped to a few conclusions here... the tar txf listing includes dirs , and erasing /usr/bin isnt doing anyone any good. might want to _not_ try this on a hdd install until that is figured out.
Posted by ke4nt1 on Sep. 10 2005,23:17Ok,
Say you install something like gnu-utils.dsl,
which REPLACES all the symlinks to busybox with a true executable.
Then you remove all the executables with your uninstaller.
Where are all my old symlinks?
Same with nvidia.dsl , or xfree86.dsl, which replaces key files
for X . What do you do when you uninstall them,
and find you have no X anymore?
Now, for a simple .tar.gz, which ONLY installs to /tmp, /home/dsl, and /opt
this might work in some instances..
This is the basis for the .uci files working so well at uninstalling.
Some programs even make additional files into the filesystem at execution time.
This is an issue even with .uci files, which may make new files in /home/dsl .
( like /home/dsl/.gqview , or /home/dsl/.wesnoth , as examples )
Now I don't experience ANY of these issues
My gnu-utils.dsl, XFree86.dsl, and nvidia.dsl are EASILY uninstallable..
I run frugal !!!
Team DSL is working on solutions for these items.. stay tuned.
Do take note that DSL strives to be the best LIVE CD,
as it's number one mission and goal ..
Posted by undertow on Sep. 10 2005,23:26i think you skipped the bottom of my post, tis the theory behind the rollback, albeit archaic.
Glad to hear that folks are working on it. its a shame its not more public, so those that arent 'Team DSL' can learn from the process.
Posted by ke4nt1 on Sep. 11 2005,00:50I think I was posting at the same time as your edits..
It will probably all be open script, like everything else in DSL,
so everyone can learn from it at their leisure once developed and released.
First we build it,
then we test it,
then we release it,
because we aim to support it..
DSL has had a fabulous track record,
and earned a great reputation for solid releases
with it's closed development model.
For the majority of DSL users, that method works fine.
Everything developed and released is out in the open,
in script form, for review by everyone.
Much more open than MANY other distros who code in near secrecy?
(( either read the sources [I can't] , or stare at a c++ elf binary? ))
For the minority of users who wish it to be an open development, sri..
Suggestions and additions are welcomed, even encouraged.
There are proper channels already in place to receive them.
Many, many user contributions are used in DSL.
Posted by undertow on Sep. 11 2005,02:49----
Do take note that DSL strives to be the best LIVE CD,
as it's number one mission and goal ..
So dsl package removal is pretty much a backburner idea? ...since hd install is 'not what its meant for'? and does this mean that user contributions towards that idea are frowned upon?
Posted by SaidinUnleashed on Sep. 11 2005,03:18
From what I understand, it's not even on the radar.
Overwriting internal DSL function scripts is not allowed in MyDSL extensions. Neither are script extensions. Extensions must be applications.
See the < DSL Acceptable Extension Policy >.
Posted by undertow on Sep. 11 2005,03:33What's the importance of that? There seems to be so many live cds, all aimed at being good live cds. frozentech's list is a good example. But so few of these are aimed towards being a decent way to get a minimal linux install on an older machine...since DSL already has much of the needed components in place, (ie: debian compatible, many many premade reduced-size packages, hd-installer that _works_ and is easy, install size of less than 200mbs, etc etc etc.) why is it important to _not_ expand in that direction?
Posted by SaidinUnleashed on Sep. 11 2005,04:48
DSL does not just aim to be a good live-cd. We think of all the people who use frugal, frugal-CF, frugal-usb, or whatever other device that people run DSL from. These people are our target audience. Hdinstalls are archaic. EVERY operating system since the beginning of time has been run in basicly the same way. The files are unpacked from the install media (or compiled/built) onto a large storage device, where a pointer or bootloader directs the processor how to continue booting the OS. DSL is changing that. DSL is meant to be run completely from ram. Yeah, it claims to be an ideal OS for older computers with little ram, and that is true. But there is a sort of hidden agenda here. DSL is changing the way an OS should work.
The hard disk is by FAR the biggest bottleneck on your PC. Even with the new 3rd gen sata drives and faster scsi, hard disks come nowhere close to the speed of your computer's ram. So why should your OS and applications be there? Because that's the way it's always been done? Any English teacher can tell you that is the emotional appeal fallacy (appealing to fear, tradition, or pity). Because everyone else does it? Another fallacy (ad populum). From ram is the ideal place for an OS to be run. It's fast, and there is plenty of room for DSL. The only place in your computer that is faster is in the CPU's cache, and right now, there isn't room for a whole modern OS there. As ramspace increases on modern computers, it gets even easier to have everything you could ever want running in ram. Eventally, as magnetic ram and other high-speed, nonvolatile, non-expiring types of storage become available, the hard disk will vanish from our computers, like floppy drives are vanishing now.
What you say!?
Most major distros have a way to get a tiny install of linux onto a doorstop computer. Debian's 31mb net installer and Slackware's MinimalCD jump to mind. There are many, many others.
Less and less so with every release, actually.
I look forward to the day that all extensions are simply mounted when you need them, and unmounted when you don't, and for frugal-users, it will remember which extensions you had mounted, and remount them at the next boot. Compressed-filesystem packages will fall by the wayside, like so many other computer related things of our parents' era. Such as punch cards, tape drives, and Pokes and Peaks.
Part of the reason that the MyDSL system is so efficient it that it does not keep a database of what it does, nor does it keep an archive of overwritten changes made to the system. MyDSL has virtually no overhead, so it can be used on even the lowliest of boxes. Creating a database of the files unpacked takes up precious CPU cycles, slowing down the user's install time. Keeping an archive ove overwritten files eats away hard disk space that could be put to better use.
Because DSL is not a distro that follows. DSL leads, Everyone else does that. Why should DSL? DSL will continue to pioneer new ways to run an OS, new ways to expand functionality without adding huge amounts of overhead, and new ways to utilize the functionality of new computers while not forgetting the little guys with their 120mhz pentium pros, like some people. *coughmicrosoftcough*
Posted by undertow on Sep. 11 2005,07:50Well now youve got me fired up for some debatin'.
Not to poke holes in the Plan, but how does that encourage development or open source? If everything is a mounted, compressed premade little uci thats immediately erased and reloaded at reboot, how can one hack the files? I understand you can choose which files you want to save (backup), but isnt that what you were just calling archaic? What draws me more to the hard drive install (and definitely away from .uci) is that i can toy with _any_ file, any time, and if it doesnt work, it's up to me to fix it. I get to have a progression. I get to customize. Isn't that the very reason i was excited about switching from windows to begin with? That nearly everything on the system can be ripped open to it's guts at a moment's notice?
I dont have a high-end machine, nor do i have the money for it, so i can't join in on all the reindeer games. I experienced it for a few days whilst housesitting and was quite impressed by the speed of it, but...honestly, it felt quite dead. Every time i turned the machine on, i was presented with somebody else's idea of a desktop, browser, etc etc. That obviously extends beyond just interface, but that's the obvious example. It made perfect sense for a machine that i couldnt utilize the hdd on, but when i could, why not just save the whole mess to the hard drive? then i could customize anything i wanted.
I dont know quite what to make of the 'emotional appeal fallacy' part of this. i am not installing it to the hard drive because everybody else does, im doing it because its what i can afford to do.
Posted by ke4nt1 on Sep. 11 2005,13:22Is it my turn yet?
Does taking a different direction than others stiffle development?
Have other distros stopped developing along those old lines of thought already?
Is DSL being openly developed?
Is any portion of DSL's latest developments not fully exposed and open?
Is there any part of the DSL distro that is not considered 'open source'?
If you answered NO to the last 5 questions, you are wise..
Once the extension is mounted, it is fully exposed.
Copy the contents to a work directory, and have at it ! Hack away.
Rebuilding your hack back into a .uci or .tar.gz is easy,
or, leave it on your hard drive, fully uncompressed, your choice..
Nothing has changed. All the same files are there.
Only the delivery system has changed.
I appreciate the fact that you like to hack. Same goes for me.
But MOST users just want it to work, every time, and get some work done.
They don't want to tweak it, bend it, or break it, or even fsck with it.
Just use it. Emails, browsing, documents, games, music, etc..
Some folks LIKE to work on their cars.
Others just want to get where they wanna go. Without issue.
No reason not to have both, and both are there for you. Your choice.
You can. You can also save it to most any other device you have.
And you can take it with you. It's migratory. It doesn't require an install.
You can have it today, and keep it, or ditch it tomorrow. or store it for later.
It will run on most anything. anywhere. You can use it to clone itself.
Share with others. Make it look|feel|drive|act however you want..
I don't think I'm understanding the role that the .uci, or the HDInstall,
has in the aggravation I feel in this thread.
Hasn't DSL just added grub to the HDinstall script?
And made both LiveCD and pendrives both capable of making a HDInstalls?
It's not like it's being dumped, or discarded. And .uci's work well in BOTH,
unlike many of the other extension types did, and they UNINSTALL ! \o/
Where's the luv' man?
I don't see where the grief is coming from..
Are the .uci filetypes intimidating? They are the exact same contents
as the .tar.gz versions they were built from! Everybody, including
HDInstallers, LOVED the .tar.gz's, because they were so HD friendly,
only writing to certain areas of the filesystem, never overwriting anything.
For frugal/liveCD/toram users, they were especially happy, because they were
such a ram savings over the .dsl filetypes, that called mkwritable into play.
If you want to mess with a .uci on any type of install, simply copy the
contents ( /opt/xchat ) to another dir ( /opt/xchat.bak),
unmount the .uci, and rename the (/opt/xchat.bak) back to (/opt/xchat)
All the icons and menus are in the user.tar.gz in the same directory!
Now you've got a permanent version of the exact same app, on your HD.
Forever..... Unless you change your mind in 6 months.. Uh-oh? Nope.
Remount and unmount the .uci again, and the app disappears..
Or, hack away at it, then make a new .tar.gz or .uci of your work,
and it's business as usual.
I'm not shot in the a$$ with dimes either.
But why waste a perfectly good hard drive on an OS install?
Wouldn't it be better if that space was filled with compressed apps,
rather than a slew of uninstallable, uncompressed files?
Isn't that what makes you sick about the 1.5GB XP install?
Isn't your install now a prisoner inside that one box?
No. Keeping them uncompressed in a bunch of dirs on a HD, is...
They are compact, They are one file, easily copied or transfered.
Wouldn't it offer more space savings if your personal files and data
were stored in a compressed format, a click away, as well as your apps?
That's about $.10 worth, isn't it?
Posted by undertow on Sep. 11 2005,17:08Im not discrediting the usefulness of .uci, ive got plenty of love for the whole idea ke4nt.
Im asking because i want your opinions, not merely out of grief/frustration. There's no reason not to discuss these things
And im learning in the meantime, as im sure any other newbies that find this thread will too.
Some simple instructions made the process of fiddling with .uci contents a lot easier to grasp, as i didnt understand it to the extent you do. yet...
i still see a full install to make more sense for 'tweakers'. It requires less of someone who simply wants to tinker with the contents of everything and learn the classic structure and function of a linux filesystem. Even if DSL is pioneering a new way, everyone else isn't, which then suddenly makes the bottleneck the learning curve, and the degree to which that information applies to everything else. Standardization is being under-represented here....i don't think that everything that is 'old' need be a fallacy of some sort or another. Its old because it works. Every time i install something via apt, its almost a guarantee that i can cd to /usr/share/doc and find some information. And every time i want to save some space on my hd, i can rm /usr/share/doc. There's no reason .uci can't do this, and i guess that would be the middle ground: which leads me back to what started all of this: uninstalling packages.
Is there any reason that uci can't expand into the existing standardized hierarchy and unexpand itself later?
Posted by undertow on Sep. 11 2005,17:16
by TeamDSL, yes. but xfce4.dsl is a good example of what's _not_ exposed and open. i am not allowed to make reference to unofficial packages in the wiki. and again that shows the bottleneck: The word 'official'. which is also what i meant about subculture, although i dont know that its the correct term.
Is there a possibility of making a venue for 'unofficial'? If i had bandwidth i'd have done it myself. I understand security, but how many people here _havent_ downloaded some software from somewhere slimy like kazaa and used it with no problems?
maybe a new room in the forums for unofficial packages. i dont know.
Posted by mikshaw on Sep. 11 2005,18:49The DSL system still follows *nix standards, in particular the filesystem hierarchy and file permissions....most other "standards" are secondary in importance in my opinion. Even the UCI system adheres to the fhs. The only difference from typical distros is that it is temporarily mounted and read-only.
A UCI is not "expanded"; it is mounted. In order to mount a filesystem you need a mount point...a single directory through which you access the filesystem. If a UCI were installed into /usr, it wouldn't be a UCI....it would be the same as a dsl package...not mounted and therefore not able to be unmounted.
Posted by undertow on Sep. 12 2005,00:34replace "expanded" with "populated", and consider it a suggestion, not an actuality.
Posted by mikshaw on Sep. 12 2005,00:47Even if it were "populated", you're talking about something that would require a system that loads the ramdisk with a lot of extra data for an uninstall. An uninstall system of any sort could potentially be a killer of a damn small distro. Although it might be convenient for some users, it is pointless for anyone running a liveCD or frugal. As far as i see it, a "full" harddrive install is just a extra and not the focus of DSL.
Posted by undertow on Sep. 12 2005,01:56what would the extra data be? again, im interested in the discussion only out of curiosity, not trying to convince anyone to switch to my brand.
and not to point out the obvious, but the poll shows almost _half_ of DSL users are hd install.
Posted by mikshaw on Sep. 12 2005,02:07extra data would at least be a list of files that are installed, and those that are overwritten by the installed files. I can't say what else it would need, but even that would require a rewrite of the mydsl system.
Posted by cbagger01 on Sep. 12 2005,17:21DSL itself and the DSL Team do not try to limit the ways that you can use the system.
If you wish to do a full hd install and use the system like a stripped down version of Debian KNOPPIX, go right ahead.
As others have said, it is easier to manage your installations via the APT Debian Package management system than it is to install *.tar.gz , *.dsl or *.uci extensions.
APT will automatically take care of installs and uninstalls and it will handle dependencies as best it can, too.
So, in summary:
DSL hd install works fine.
Debian APT is the preferred way to install new software to a DSL hd install.
*.dsl, *.tar.gz, and *.uci installs are also possible but in the case of *.tar.gz and *.dsl, you are SWIMMING AT YOUR OWN RISK because you cannot easily uninstall or undo any unexpected complications that may result from the install.
It seems clear to me that the developers like the current functionality and have other things to work on than a DSL-specific unintaller/dependency handler.
Since DSL also can be used with APT, I agree with the developers.
Use the right tool for the job.
Posted by undertow on Sep. 12 2005,19:12
I understand that now, in a roundabout fashion, as ke4nt said that they "are working on it", and SaidinUnleashed said its not only backburner, its "not even on the radar".
Again, im not trying to convince anyone else of anything!
My curiosity arose from what i felt to be stifling and resistance towards _someone_else_ working on such a thing. I see DSL as powerful in a way i hadnt before, for faster machines that can handle loading the majority of it into RAM. But i also see the way that it is powerful for my usage, which is getting a lot of otherwise bloated/slow applications into a small space that work much more efficiently at a loss of minimal functionality. Its again not my priority to try and decipher what the developers should work on, nor am i trying...
i just wanted to understand if, or if even, anyone would be against the idea of others pursuing those ends. and if so, why?? Every response to this seems to be 'that won't work', or 'what a waste of time' or such lot. why? is it soo far out there that installing/uninstalling of stripped down apps that can turn an old hotpad into an incredibly functional system?? why is that seen as hopelessly useless?
Posted by clivesay on Sep. 12 2005,21:29Hi, undertow.
I think maybe all the messages just aren't connecting so I'll give it a shot.
The mydsl system was created specifically for LiveCD and Frugal users. Actually, Frugal was created for use on cf cards but has grown wildly into an option for the hard drive. It has always been stated that we STRONGLY DISCOURAGE people using the mydsl system on a typical hd install because it's not meant to be a complete package management system. Apt-get is the best method of managing a hd install since it is a true package management system. There was no reason for the DSL developers to re-create the wheel.
If you want to create your own package management system for hd installs, that's fine but don't expect the DSL developers to embrace it, even if it works. That is just not a direction that is of interest to us. I'm not sure why you really want to pursue this unless you just want to see if you can do it.
It seems to me it would be time much more well spent to learn how to remaster the base and add in the mydsl apps if you want to have an OS full of apps that will run on old machines. As long as you don't add alot of extra files to /home/dsl or /opt you can run a remastered frugal install on a p1 with 32mb ram that includes the gimp and any other large applications without using much ram. I have even created a gtk2 remaster using the gtk2.dsl that uses little more ram than the base DSL iso.
Please understand.....If you roll out this process in these forums, people start to think this is a DSL supported process and then get frustrated if people don't answer their questions. If you start this going and then go on vacation for two weeks and can't answer questions then people get mad at the DSL community and think we're just a bunch of unhelpful snobs.
If you want to start this project and put up a project page somewhere to manage it, I think that's fine as long as it's stated that the project is not supported by the DSL community as far as technical support. The reason I stated above is also the reason why Saidinunleashed doesn't want unofficial .dsl files linked in the Wiki. The Wiki is supported by the DSL team. If people are getting .dsl files from the Wiki, they are assuming they can come here to get support questions for that app. That is not the way to do it.
Ke4nt does ONE HELL of a job managing extensions. It is a HUGE job. As DSL has changed he has had to rebuild the entire extension database at times to keep up with the changes. He examines every extension and, if he thinks there are issues, he might send it out to the testing team for input, then post to the mydsl testing area before putting it in the main directory. This is all done to protect the community and ensure a good extension. HD installers, more than anyone, should appreciate the thoroughness of his work. They are almost guarenteed a working app that won't break their install. See, if we make major changes to the base for the next release and someone installs a .dsl package from the DSL Wiki that breaks their precious HD install, they are going to be upset at us for making that package available.
We are not trying to squash anyone's creativity here. The DSL community trusts us to give them a good OS with minimal problems and we strive to do that. It means that sometimes you have to draw lines that not everyone is going to embrace.
I am very proud that we released 1.5 with major changes and hardly a peep in the forums about issues. To me, that tells me we are doing something right.
I hope this came out the right way. I think what you are wanting to do is interesting but don't be affended because the development team does not see the value of supporting it. Everyone has their ideas of how things should be done. That's why there are hundreds of distros out there to choose from.
Posted by mikshaw on Sep. 12 2005,21:39my own opinion....
I see no reason not to develop ideas that you feel would help. As others have said, several user-developed features have already been incorporated into the base. I guess it depends on how much the core team feels the idea would improve DSL, and as far as i can see you are not getting much positive feedback because the team are probably not interested in doing any work on this particular subject themselves. There is already a full package system that works in DSL, so maybe the idea of replicating some features in myDSL isn't worth their time. If, however, you were to put together a working uninstall system you'll probably get better feedback that you get from just presenting an idea.
Posted by cbagger01 on Sep. 12 2005,22:04"that won't work" - meaning that the existing extension install method where original files can be overwritten is incompatible with a simple uninstall routine. With computers, anything is possible provided that you spend enough time and creativity to develop a solution. But the as-is system will not work and cannot be easily fixed without causing other complications like ramdisk bloat.
I think that your biggest misunderstanding is that you keep confusing the myDSL extension system with a traditional linux package management system like RPM or DEB/APT.
myDSL is not a true package management system AND NEVER WAS INTENDED TO BE ONE. In fact, there are NO management controls that are designed into the extensions. On the plus side, this means that extension building is a simple process that is much easier than building a "real" package like a *.deb or an *.rpm On the minus side, no management = no ability to safely uninstall or verify dependency requirements.
The idea is that these would be EXTENSIONS of the original livecd and not traditional software packages. For use with a livecd or frugal, this is no big deal, but for a hard drive installation this can be a problem.
So, like I already said before:
There already exists a true package management system for DSL. It is called Debian APT, aka apt-get.
It is very easy to activate and use dpkg/apt-get and it supports the full installation/uninstallation/dependency handling that is required of a traditional hard disk installed linux system.
Because the system is pointed towards the "oldstable" repository, it is also an ideal solution for older computers. There are many GTK1.2 applications that are lightweight and ideal for use with an older computer system.
The DSL guys even provided a "Syntaptic" choice in the DSL main menu that provides a graphical install/uninstall interface. I suggest that you give it a try.
It is also possible to install/uninstall non-Debian packages using a program called "alien", so it is also possible to use programs that are available in RPM format or Slackware packages.
Debian package management is an excellent and sophisticated way to manage software for your hard drive installation. It is the ideal solution.
It also took man-YEARS of design reviews and codewriting to produce this excellent system and in my opinion it would be a "waste of time" to duplicate this effort by trying to turn the myDSL extension system to suit a similar purpose.
Hopefully, this makes some sense to you because I am running out of ways to explain it any better.
Posted by friedgold on Sep. 12 2005,23:32Wow it seems this thread has stirred up quite a discussion.
-An idea about DSL was suggested.
-A number of problems with the idea were mentioned.
-It seemed like undertow was going to try answers these criticisms in the best way - by trying to code.
The critics of a uninstall system may be right. It may not be possible to add a uninstall system which is reliable, doesn't negatively impact Live CD usage and doesn't overcomplicate the extension system. If that is the case then undertow is likely to come to the same conclusion after actually trying out his ideas. Maybe you will be surprised and he will put together something which solves some of the issues you perceive. But why not let him try to produce something?
Maybe I'm reading the responses of 'Team DSL' incorrectly but it seems to me that they not only think it's a bad idea but would prefer the idea wasn't even explored at all in the forums. Posts like
Seeing as SaidinUnleashed subsequently admitted that the removal of extensions isn't being worked upon what does this mean? To me this reply seems to be a way to encourage people to wait passively to see what 'Team DSL' do instead of exploring the idea here on the forums.
Undertow's question: "does this mean that user contributions towards that idea are frowned upon?" was answered by SaidinUnleashed with:
Should that be taken as a yes, user contributions on the idea are frowned upon? Because that's how I read this response.
So we can't talk about hacking the core functionality of DSL in the forums? If this is the case then partiticpation in these forums is a whole lot less attactive in my eyes. Threads discussing the inner workings of DSL/remastering/general DSL hacking are the most interesting to me. I hope I have read the responses of responses of 'Team DSL' incorrectly because otherwise this really saddens me.
Posted by mikshaw on Sep. 13 2005,00:41well, I'm going to guess that "Team DSL" doesn't want to have to deal with a pile of questions/criticisms from people who mistakenly believe that everything posted here is both supported and recommended by the developers of DSL. I can understand that. I also agree that Team DSL should not waste time working on redundant features.
However, I don't see any problem with people using these forums as a way to communicate ideas about various changes to DSL, regardless of whether they overwrite internal DSL functionality. I understand the desire to keep that sort of thing out of the DSL repository, but i don't think it's reasonable to stifle talk about such things....this is linux after all, which is all about customizing and hacking to make the system work for the user. While the dev team may not be interested in implementing certain features, this is a community of DSL users, many of whom want to share ideas regardless of whether or not they'd be officially supported.
Posted by cbagger01 on Sep. 13 2005,15:33I am not speaking for TeamDSL, but my guess is that they welcome experimenting by others and sharing of knowledge in the forums, because many ideas eventually find themselves incorporated later on into the livecd itself.
HOWEVER, they want to make sure that people don't confuse experimentation with supported functionality.
So a good working rule is:
Don't experiment in the WIKI or the doc site.
Don't expect the extension maintainer to approve extensions that customize DSL beyond what is needed to get an application up and running (IE: wrappers).
Seems reasonable to me.
I have yet to see someone prevented from experimenting and discussing it in the forums. So I am not worried right now.
Posted by undertow on Sep. 13 2005,17:07Team DSL is working on solutions for these items.. stay tuned.
Seeing as SaidinUnleashed subsequently admitted that the removal of extensions isn't being worked upon what does this mean?
^^anybody going to address this?
Posted by undertow on Sep. 13 2005,17:41
?? are you serious?
did you even read my initial posting?
im talking about using tar and xargs. look over it again. it obviously doesnt work, but its not far off. ke4nt acknowledged that it would work in some scenarios. If i thought .dsls were .debs, why would i be using tar?
Posted by ke4nt1 on Sep. 13 2005,21:07Allow me to conclude this thread by replying to some of my
quoted statements, and some last thoughts.
This thread has become degenerated, and very
non-productive to any definition of "user contribution" ..
It's more " debatin' for show, or sport " than being very useful.
TO quote me about my stating that 'solutions are in the works',
and mistaking that for a conflict of words with SU, or a lack
of interest, or thoughts to suppress user-contributions such as
friedgold posted, are very poor explanations of my post.
It was posted with joy, and excitement about things 'yet-to-come" ..
While this thread started with a new user ( posts =1 ),
asking for some info about removing an extension he'd installed,
and was replied to by adssse stating the obvious facts, (nogo)
it then went on to Undertow describing his exploration into
"removal by script", NOT a very good idea for a n00b,
and certainly destructive to his install, should he have actually
executed what was posted... I jumped in to say "what if" on a
number of examples, to which I got the usual, but pleasant
banter of back-n-forth about the idea.. no problem ..
Some of the posts were edited , or corrected, since that time.
Where it's gone to from there to where it is now has been
nothing but a debate, and over what? Suspicions about policy?
Attempts to read into others posts whatever inflames you?
Before this recent string of threads began,
about posting and linking unsupported items
in DSL's documentation WiKi's... (the first fuel to fire this mess)
Have any of you felt unwelcome to contribute, or share?
Unhappy with the results of the 0.8, 0.9, 1.x series DSL releases?
I feel this incoming FUD needs to end.
cbagger01's last post spoke volumes..
I will explain one of MY quotes more clearly
to prevent any further confusion over my posts..
This is NOT about developing immediate techniques for
removing .dsl's or .tar.gz's from hard drive installs.
SU was correct about that NOT being on the radar..
My comment is about future developments improving the distro,
and making the idea completely unnecessary and obsolete.
This is about the future of DSL and it's packages.
.dsl files have been around since 0.7
.ci since 0.8
.uci's since 1.0
Look at the improvements made to DSL since 0.7 ?
Do you think this development is going to stop?
All this stuff is old, first-generation, and will be abandoned for
better, faster, and smaller developmental progress and new
ways of improving this incredible wave of ram-based,
modular technology we see a huge swell of interest in..
( DSL's focus )
Have you noticed DSL getting 'smaller' ?
( more innovation, less size )
There are already a great number of fine additions
we could add into DSL with all that free space...but..
DSL already has a roadmap for versions 2.x, 3.x, etc..
layed out in plan form, and underway.
DSL 'IS' an open-source distribution, everything in it is open.
But it is NOT an open-development model.
so, this information is not disclosed to the public.
( meaning, I won't discuss it, or disclose it with you.. )
This DOES means you can DO whatever you want with it,
in its current form.
This does NOT mean the developers of the future DSL versions
have any obligation to take into consideration or include any
"user-contributions" into DSL code. It is only by merit and
benefit to the roadmap that code is allowed into DSL development.
User contributions are always welcomed, and reviewed.
Many items submitted to DSL are currently in the distro..
But using DSL resources, such as the wiki, or documentation,
for "user contributions" and "pimpin your warez", is simply rude,
and bad form.. Get your own bandwidth and server to do this..
Now, links and discussions about scripts, alterations,
remasters, links to your own builds, extensions, whatever,
...the forums is certainly the place to share...
Undertow, I'll address you personally, since your negativity and venom
is now showing up in other, more positive threads. i.e.
< http://damnsmalllinux.org/cgi-bin....w;st=10 >
( 15 compliments, and a few questions, easily found in the wiki and docs ?)
( Why trash the thread ? .. SuperLou didn't deserve that.. )
How does this post help YOUR development of creating an uninstaller
for first generation extensions into DSL hard drive installs?
Or, assist yourself or others in getting thru this bottleneck you perceive, and away from the dark side?
I think I'll just sit the rest of this one out, folks..
Posted by undertow on Sep. 13 2005,22:46yep, youre right ke4nt. that was a mispost, it was aimed somewhere else. I intended it for another post i was reading, about "STRONGLY DISCOURAGING" people from using HD installs, yet that frugal is so challenging for the averagebeginner to understand (or find documentation for)
as far as this thread goes, I expected a positive response and the possibility of collaboration and instead received multiple people telling me it was a stupid idea and that i was completely misconceiving everything. That isnt what i expected, and i just got done doing this in the IRC channel (two days making a bot that was _quiet_ and _useful_ for everyone, and it was banned?) and then again in the wiki (making reference to a 'unofficial' .dsl and being told my IP would be banned for it), which were both SaidinUnleashed's doing. Im simply searching for a way to contribute in a way im capabe of to a project that's given a lot to me, and have yet to find something that is needed/appreciated.
so whatever. thanks for all the fish.
Posted by ke4nt1 on Sep. 14 2005,02:07
Hmm.. good point..
It differs greatly from the typical install you see on 500 other distros..
A less-detail-oriented, more step-by-step guide to using the
different features and methods to operate this new environment
would be very beneficial to visitors and new users..
What areas do you see as the most lacking for new users?
What part have you found most challenging?
Persistancy? Setup? Backup? Pendrive?
A walk-through, of actions like backing up your files to
survive a reboot, would save a lot of folks time and aggravation
from scrolling thru dozens of posts searching for successful procedures.
A step-by-step on how-to keep your downloaded extensions from
disappearing, and where they should placed at boottime,
would be another good topic to cover, that I see frequently asked.
Posted by John on Sep. 15 2005,07:01All, I am locking down this thread. The quality thoughts on the topic are already in here. Letting this go on anymore will be like watching a dog chase its tail.
Undertow, please stick to one nick.