Re: [ilugd] [lugj] CDE : EXE like package manager for GNU/Linux

[V. Sasi Kumar]

On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 03:42 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:

> Now What I am looking for and working at my little FOSS research Lab is the
> Distroless system

I suggest you take a look at Diego Saravia's Antidistro. This is in
Spanish, but a Google translation can just about give you the idea:
http://docs.hipatia.net/distros/distros.pdf

He has a project to do something similar to, or maybe exactly the same
as, what you are doing. I will find the link and send it to you soon. He
has already done some work in it.

Best
Sasi

-- 
V. Sasi Kumar
Free Software Foundation of India
http://swatantryam.blogspot.com


___
Ilugd mailing list
Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd

Re: [ilugd] [lugj] CDE : EXE like package manager for GNU/Linux

[Narendra Sisodiya]

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:28 AM, shreekant bohra wrote:

> May be this is something everyone wanted, Narendra?
>
> http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/cde.html
>
> "CDE is a tool that
> automatically packages up the *C*ode, *D*ata, and *E*nvironment involved
> in running any Linux command so that it can execute identically on another
> computer without any installation or configuration. "
>
> In short, an exe like package system for GNU/Linux
>
>
Thanks Sri,
   There are many ways to do this task..

1) RunZframework (Or superDeb) -
http://hacktolive.org/w/index.php?title=RUNZ reading the code is still
pending... but this looks same as my Debbundle Approach -
http://code.google.com/p/debbundle/ expect that the Debbunde do not have GUI
right now..

The next SchoolOS release will not be on DVD, It will be a very minimal
version of Ubuntu/Fedora. One can download applications and then install
it.
How It work -
*Step 1 -- Create Bundles --*
If you look at the code
http://code.google.com/p/debbundle/source/browse/trunk/Bundle_Creator It is
just a single magic line

sudo apt-get -o dir::cache::archives="$LocalDir" install --download-only
$ALLPACKAGES


This single magic line download the $ALLPACKAGES in $LocalDir, For example
if you want to install
gtk-recordmydesktop then When you run this


sudo apt-get -o dir::cache::archives="./gtk-recordmydesktop" install
--download-only gtk-recordmydesktop

This is just like a installation, but instead of installing, It will
download gtk-recordmydesktop package in given directory with all
its dependency. After this all the pacakge will zipped. This is how a
deb_bundle is created.
you can take the deb_bundle file into another desktop and apply installer
script on it. which just unzip the file and install all deb files.


Now Imagine, when Ubuntu 10.10 is released then one of you can create VLC
bundle Lets says

VLC.xx.u1004.i386.deb_bundle

This means VLC with xx version for u10.10 on i386 arch.
These script help a lots but Deb_bundle have to created on "Freshly
Installed System"
Example, A freshly installed system do not have Package A and B. If you want
to create Bundle for Package A and Package A depends on package B then
creating a deb_bundle on Package A will include Package B. But If you have
installed Package B and after that you create a bundle for Package A then
this will not include package B.

This will be there in next release of schoolos ,
Now What is Wrong about this process..
See this.. for every distro, for every version we have to create package..
Ex
VLC.xx.u1004.i386.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.u1010.i386.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.u1104.i386.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.f11.i386.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.f12.i386.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.f13.i386.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.u1004.amd64.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.u1010.amd64.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.u1104.amd64.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.f11.amd64.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.f12.amd64.deb_bundle
VLC.xx.f13.amd64.deb_bundle

This looks messy but this is one step ahead with current packaging of deb or
rpm because is zip all needed.. should i list up all the packages which are
depends on VLC etc to give complete picture of messiness.

Now What I am looking for and working at my little FOSS research Lab is the
Distroless system
Lets figure out how we can improve this.
Instead of creating Deb_bundle for Ubuntu/fedora/debian etc... Lets create
a dependency chart of ALL package of Ubuntu Repo or most used applications..
Now lets give dependency Index to each package. This way we can figure out
the most dependent libraries and packages. Let customise this minimal system
as a CoreLinux.
So we can just ship the coreLinux to users. Now this will be having very few
revision and we can create CoreLinux on Most stable Linux systems like
Debian or RedHat/Centos..
After creating CoreLinux we can create application in two way.

## easy way ##
Because CoreLinux is based on debian or redhat, we can still create
deb_bundle and in this case, size of deb_bundles will be small.. group of
volunteer can create deb_bundles in 10 days..

## Difficult way ##
On top of CoreLinux, we have to download the source code and other things
and compile into one package which itself has dependencies..

I have blogged once - http://wiki.schoolos.org/index.php?title=Dream_Linux

Student can get associated with me on the work because It is a fact that if
more then one people work on a project and efficiency increase..


-- 
┌─┐
│Narendra Sisodiya
│http://narendrasisodiya.com
└─┘
___
Ilugd mailing list
Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd

Re: [ilugd] LVM and ext3 size relationship

[Raj Mathur (राज माथुर)]

On Saturday 13 Nov 2010, Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
> I decided to check the ext3 overhead empirically, since I not keen to
> delve into the resize2fs sources. I've attached a simple python
> script that I used on a bunch of machines to measure the difference
> between block device size (reported by /proc/partitions)
> and fs size (as reported by statfs). It currently reports on all
> mounted ext2 and ext3 filesystems.

Afraid the script didn't make it to the list -- Mailman scrubs all 
attachments by default.  Can you upload somewhere and post a link?

-- Raju
-- 
Raj Mathurr...@kandalaya.org  http://kandalaya.org/
   GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5  0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/   ||   It is the mind that moves

___
Ilugd mailing list
Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd

Re: [ilugd] LVM and ext3 size relationship

[Sirtaj Singh Kang]

I keep forgetting that attachments are scrubbed. Script is available at:

http://sirtaj.net/projects/fscomp.py

-Taj.

___
Ilugd mailing list
Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd

Re: [ilugd] LVM and ext3 size relationship

[Sirtaj Singh Kang]

On 13-Nov-10, at 12:39 PM, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
[snip]

He wanted a formula.  He has not got a formula.


Here's a formula:

y = x * 1.0158

Explanation:

I decided to check the ext3 overhead empirically, since I not keen to  
delve into the resize2fs sources. I've attached a simple python script  
that I used on a bunch of machines to measure the difference between  
block device size (reported by /proc/partitions)
and fs size (as reported by statfs). It currently reports on all  
mounted ext2 and ext3 filesystems.


I might be doing something really dumb, but it looks like there is  
1.56-58% overhead for almost all ext3 filesystems over 1G in size  
created with default mkfs flags. It gets higher for smaller  
filesystems. Note that the journal overhead may not be included in  
this value.


If anyone gets different values or finds any errors in the attached  
script I'd appreciate a note.



End of story.


It's kind of a boring story.

-Taj.



___
Ilugd mailing list
Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd

Re: [ilugd] LVM and ext3 size relationship

[Manish]

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like some assistance in understanding the relationship between
> the size of an LVM2 logical volume and ext3.
>
> If I want to grow an ext3 fs by size X in mb, how do I calculate
> the size Y by which I have to first resize the LVM volume on which
> it resides? Most sources I've read online say something like "make
> it a little bigger just to be safe" but I'm hoping there is a
> better and more accurate formula than that.

does -L option of lvextend not serve the purpose?  i use it to resize
[increase ;-)] the size of LVs before resizing/inflating the filesystem
(xfs).  or did i just misread your question?

hth
-- 
manish

___
Ilugd mailing list
Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd