iB::Topic::complex dsl vs uci

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » MyDSL Extensions » myDSL Extensions (deprecated) » complex dsl vs uci

		Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
		Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic

Pages: (6) </ 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: complex dsl vs uci, choosing which way to go

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

clivesay

Group: Guests
Posts: 935
Joined: Dec. 2003

Posted: Mar. 21 2005,16:58

softgun -

As far the file that goes into /var/lib, you could try moving it to the /opt directory and see if the app still runs. If it complains that it needs to see /var/lib you can keep the directory in /opt but symlink it to /var/lib. That should satisfy the program. After that, just create a little startup script to create the link and launch the app and you are all set.

cbagger01

Group: Members
Posts: 4264
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Mar. 21 2005,17:34

The problem with "/var" directories is that they are usually created for the purpose of saving log information or other writes.

If you symlink a /var subdirectory back to a read-only subdirectory inside the UCI mountpoint /opt/ProgramName/var/MyVarDir you will not be able to write to it.

I don't know if this statement is true for this application, but my generic solution would be to include a check to see if the /var/programname subdirectory does not exist and if so:

mkdir /var/programname

and then cp over any "writable" logfiles before starting the applicaiton.

You would included this in the beginning of the wrapper where you usually put your LD_LIBRARY_PATH stuff.

softgun

Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: Dec. 2004

Posted: Mar. 22 2005,16:52

I will try all that you say. The fact that uci are read only maybe a cause of some problems in a database program!

softgun

Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: Dec. 2004

Posted: Mar. 27 2005,16:25

Quote (roberts @ Mar. 21 2005,08:06)

With the added capability of completely "unloading" the uci in RC1. I would think that is should become "the" most desired form of an extension. I believe all .tar.gz could be easily turned into a uci which would benefit all users.

Hello Robert,

A few questions when you have the time to answer :-)

I would like it very much if you could kindly explain what you mean by completely "unloading" means to me/us?

If ucis arre read only, does it mean postgresql -which is an RDMS - is not suitable to be developed as a uci?

Or if we do create one can we have it write the database to another writable directory? Is this the solution?

In developing uci, as they have to be in a single directory, how can tar.gz files which do not have this requirement, be turned iinto a uci?

Do we have to nake ucis by using source downloads and putting them into a single directory with config --prefix=/directory ?

Thank you.

roberts

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Mar. 27 2005,16:47

Quote

I would like it very much if you could kindly explain what you mean by completely "unloading" means to me/us?

Using emelfm double click on a uci extension and it loads up ready to use including menu and icon. Double click on it again and it is gone. No menu, no icon, no mount, no empty directory. That is what I mean my completely unloading the uci.

Quote

If ucis arre read only, does it mean postgresql -which is an RDMS - is not suitable to be developed as a uci?

Or if we do create one can we have it write the database to another writable directory? Is this the solution?

Database or anything else that need writeable access would require one to do an analysis of those parts requiring such. I have made in the past both a Postgres and MySQL cdrom based applicance. Also, there are many other Knoppix derived database products. So it is a matter of being presice with the use of syslinks.

Quote

In developing uci, as they have to be in a single directory, how can tar.gz files which do not have this requirement, be turned iinto a uci?

I think you are confusing the general term of .tar.gz vs the .tar.gz dsl extensions. The DSL tar.gz extension by definition can only be located in the two natively writeable areas being /opt and /home. Both of two directores is the structure used in the uci type extension.

Quote

Do we have to nake ucis by using source downloads and putting them into a single directory with config --prefix=/directory ?

Not necessarily. Many of them can use PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Each one would need its own analysis on how best to proceeed.