[Dev] new graphical liveCD ISO

[Josh Branning]

On 06/07/17 17:12, bill-auger wrote:
 >
 > ok cool i thought and openrc ISO would be interesting to ppl - as i
 > said though, the openrc ISO is not working yet but i will keep you
 > guys posted
 >
 > i chose LXDE mostly because it is easy to configure using flat-files
 > and all - because i wanted it to be easy to boot the CD and make
 > customiztions (like the theme) and then easily transfer those change
 > back outside into the build tree - many people do not care for LXDE
 > but that is not important - i am working to streamline the entire
 > process so that many WM/DE combinations are available - LXDE for now
 > is a good compromise on simplicity and feature set while developing -
 > it sertainly does not need to be "The" parabola desktop
 >
 >> I am not 100% sure about the installer. Can the ISO be built
 >> without?

Again, I think these are/were excellent choices. I like LXDE 'coz it's 
mostly C and I like OpenRC, because of it's cross platform advantages 
to/for other OSes as well as Parabola such as BSD and also it's 
compatibility with System V scripts.

OpenRC is also written in C and sh, which are generally portable and 
appear on most systems (common), but are also better for bootstrapping 
from non-gcc C-only compilers, if one were to appear that could compile 
the linux kernel (it could reduce the trusting trust problem).

Perhaps these weren't the reasons you had in mind, I don't know, but you 
seem to have made good choices as far as things go.

 >
 > i am not clear what you are asking here - as i said, currently i did
 > not yet put the calamares on the CD - so it is not only possible, but
 > that is indeed how the current demo is at this moment - the calamares
 > installer is going to be just another package so can be easily
 > installed or not - that is actually the reson i did not put it in -
 > because i would like to get that package into the repos first - but
 > without and installer you only have a liveCD environment with no
 > persistence - i dont see how it would make any difference if the
 > installer were left out - one does not need to run the installer just
 > because it is there - maybe i am mis-understanding the question

Ok, great.

The reason for asking whether the ISO could be created without the 
installer was because I am not to keen on CMake and C++. I think 
everything where possible should be written in C (only half jokingly) 
and I prefer shell and GNU Makefiles. But that's only my personal 
preference.

What I am using to install at the moment is a script I modified and 
found on the interwebs, in combination with the CLI iso.

I may send it to you, although I don't know the licence. You could 
probably search for the text online if you cared or if it was important 
enough.

... let me find that USB drive,


Josh