Hi Israel, I do not fully understand how an installation along those lines should work. But I know that you understand a lot about creating a full operating system, so I encourage you to try it; to do what you want with a much smaller foot-print than doing it with ubiquity.
Another option might be to extend the OBI to take advantage of an existing home partition; to let you include it or copy it to be used in the system that is being installed. Best regards Nio Den 2014-09-14 22:37, Israel skrev: > Hi all, > I agree in both respects. > The target system is something that will freeze up using ubiquity.... > however, > our target is also people that want a lightweight environment that is > fairly easy to set up, and is fully customizable. This would make using > Ubiquity ideal for some people... however, > I have an idea that we could in effect partition the harddrive for the > user based on a few options, and detecting what is already on the > machine (is it Linux, or not?). > Then make a chroot on the computer from stored packages in /var/apt/cache > and install grub2 to it.... and voila. > It could be a simple dialog program that asks a couple of questions, and > runs basically the script we already have to build the Live CD, but uses > /dev/sdX mounted at /mnt/OS as the chroot directory. it could > potentially link /dev/sdN as the /home of the new system. > > Phill, does this seem reasonable? Am I missing something major in what > I understand here? This seems like what Ubiquity would be doing in essence. > > On 09/14/2014 10:33 AM, Nio Wiklund wrote: >> No, I'm not joking, Phill :-D >> >> Ubiquity should not be the only installer, because it has a heavy >> foot-print, as you wrote. I certainly agree with you about that. >> >> But I think many people 'need it' to set up their system in an advanced >> way, with several partitions or with OEM. >> >> For OEM it is enough to include ubiquity in the tarball and not in the >> installer (live system). We can consider that. >> >> -o- >> >> But I suggest that we do *not* include ubiquity in the present version >> of ToriOS. >> >> The alternate installer is an entirely different concept without a live >> session. It would create a doublet system, that I do not think we should >> bother about for ToriOS. The OBI needs much less RAM than the alternate >> installer, and it is much faster and much more stable, particularly with >> low end computers. >> >> Who needs a very complicated partition system on a very old and weak >> computer? I think some people want it, but do they really need it? Many >> people (including me) are happy with one root partition, one swap >> partition and a *data partition*, that need not be included in the >> system setup, and that can be managed separately for pictures, music, >> video, etc). This is easily set up with gparted and used by the OBI at >> the advanced OBI level. >> >> It might be different in a more powerful computer, but then ubiquity can >> do the job. >> >> Best regards >> Nio >> >> Den 2014-09-14 16:51, Phill Whiteside skrev: >>> WHAT???? >>> >>> >>> On 14 September 2014 15:22, Nio Wiklund <nio.wikl...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:nio.wikl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> So even I would say that ubiquity should be bundled with ToriOS, maybe >>> not in the first version, but in the next version, or in a DVD version >>> (oversized for CD disks), while we must keep a very lean CD version. >>> >>> >>> >>> you are joking. >>> >>> Use the alternate installer as per lubuntu. A lot of the machines you >>> are aiming for could not run ubiquity! Lubuntu runs on less than what >>> Ubiquity needs. >>> >>> Just my thoughts, >>> >>> Phill. >>> >>> -- >>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phillw > > -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~torios Post to : torios@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~torios More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
