3.01 frugal; how to use devx_301.sfs in same directory?

Using applications, configuring, problems
Post Reply
Message
Author
losat
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri 01 Feb 2008, 23:19

3.01 frugal; how to use devx_301.sfs in same directory?

#1 Post by losat »

I have a 3.01 frugal install on an ext2 or ext3 partition at /puppy301.
The puppy install files and my save file are in this directory. However, when I put devx_301.sfs in the same directory, it is not recognized. I had to move the file up one level (i.e., in the root directory of the ext2/ext3 volume). This is unfortunate, as I intend to have multiple puppy installations and really want to keep the .sfs files independent.
How can I configure puppy to use add-on sfs files in the puppy301 install directory?
Thanks
maddox
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri 28 Sep 2007, 20:37
Location: sometimes in France

#2 Post by maddox »

Normally (with a frugal install), all the extra *.sfs files you want to load are located in / ......( top level directory)
The devx-301.sfs is made/used for puppy-3.01
The version numbers have to match for it to load... otherwise it will complain

You can also use the BootManager to specify which *.sfs files to load while booting.
Located in Menu -> System -> BootManager
it has an option to load/unload the *.sfs files you want while booting
Hope this helps...
.
losat
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri 01 Feb 2008, 23:19

#3 Post by losat »

No, it doesn't; but thanks for trying.

I can use devx-301.sfs just fine, but only if I put it in "/".
I really want it in "/puppy301" (where the installed files and my pup_save file are located).

BootManager doesn't help, not recognizing the file unless it's in "/".

I'm thinking I need to tweak a startup script; perhaps someone knows which one and how.

(Having to put the add-on .sfs files in "/" kind of defeats the purpose of putting the installation in /puppy301 (which was the default in the universal installer and certainly seems like a good idea).)
User avatar
jcoder24
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri 06 May 2005, 12:33
Location: Barbados

#4 Post by jcoder24 »

Do you have psubdir=puppy301 in your grub/lilo config?
losat
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri 01 Feb 2008, 23:19

#5 Post by losat »

Yes
ICPUG
Posts: 1308
Joined: Mon 25 Jul 2005, 00:09
Location: UK

#6 Post by ICPUG »

losat

Can I put you out of your misery?

Puppy 3.01 made huge strides in getting Puppy to boot from a subdirectory. Previously the puppy_ver.sfs had to be located in the / directory.

3.01 solved this problem but, as you have found, extra .sfs files have to be located in the / directory. This is presently a bug/feature.

It is possible the script to modify is the init script wrapped up in the initrd.gz.

To get at the files in the initrd.gz have a look at the 3.01 release notes here:
http://www.puppylinux.com/download/release-3.01.htm

I think the init script in located in /sbin/init (I have forgotten - it is quite a while since I extracted it!)

I am looking at the init script, for other reasons, but I could not see immediately where it goes hunting for extra .sfs files. I would have thought it would be in there somewhere though!

ICPUG
losat
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri 01 Feb 2008, 23:19

#7 Post by losat »

Thanks. I'll poke around in the init script(s) when I get some free time.
John Lewis
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon 03 Dec 2007, 10:19
Location: Albany West Australia

#8 Post by John Lewis »

Yes I found this same problem.

I ended up putting devx in the 3.01 folder and then making a symlink.

That works for me but may not be what you want.

Hope this helps,

John Lewis
User avatar
jcoder24
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri 06 May 2005, 12:33
Location: Barbados

#9 Post by jcoder24 »

Actually, having the sfs files in the root is not a problem (other than looking out-of-place).

If you are running multiple versions of the same puppy then they use the same file. If you are running different versions then they are different files. So in either case it shouldn't be a problem.

In fact it can be a blessing. For example, I run about three different versions of 3.01 so havin g the sfs files in root make the accessible to all three. If they were in sub-folders I would have to create symlinks to each folder.
Post Reply