Devx_431.sfs problem

Booting, installing, newbie
Post Reply
Message
Author
431user
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat 01 Feb 2014, 22:42

Devx_431.sfs problem

#1 Post by 431user »

I have successfully installed Puppy 4.3.1 on my laptop and have been learning its capabilities. I am attempting to install the Devx_431.sfs file by following the following instructions I found on the "hard-puppy" page.

2. Click on the devx_xxx.sfs in a ROX-Filer window to mount it.
3. Open a terminal in the mounted directory.
6. # cp -a --remove-destination ./* /mnt/hda2/
7. # sync
8. Close the terminal.
9. Click on the devx_xxx.sfs file to unmount it


However, when I clicked to mount it I received the message: "Failed mounting or unmounting".

What's going on here?

Thank you.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#2 Post by mikeb »

forum glitch
Last edited by mikeb on Wed 12 Feb 2014, 14:44, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#3 Post by mikeb »

One reason could be a corrupt download and the other is the wrong devx.

I wonder if this would be of interest as it avoids dumping hundreds of megs of mostly unwanted files into your install
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=90909
assuming of course the reaosn for th ebad mount is found

what are you building just out of interest?

mike

431user
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat 01 Feb 2014, 22:42

Devx_431.sfs problem

#4 Post by 431user »

mikeb wrote:One reason could be a corrupt download
mike
The checksum looks good.
mikeb wrote:and the other is the wrong devx.
I downloaded devx_431.sfs which I assume is the one for pup_431.sfs
mikeb wrote:I wonder if this would be of interest
Don't know Linux well enough to understand it.
mikeb wrote:what are you building just out of interest?
I'm attempting to load drivers and a few examples for a USB device. Simple to do in Windows XP but instructions for Linux involves a shell script and programs written in C hence the necessity for compiling. I'm studying BASH and reviewing C. A real learning experience!

User avatar
Karl Godt
Posts: 4199
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2010, 13:52
Location: Kiel,Germany

#5 Post by Karl Godt »

The correct code to mount squashfs files is fount in

# grep -H ' mount ' `which filemnt`

/usr/sbin/filemnt:

mount -t $Type -o loop "$imgFile" "$MntPt"


also

DEVLOOP="`losetup-FULL -f`" #next free loop device.

is important
«Give me GUI or Death» -- I give you [[Xx]term[inal]] [[Cc]on[s][ole]] .
Macpup user since 2010 on full installations.
People who want problems with Puppy boot frugal :P

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#6 Post by mikeb »

Ok penny dropped..
its a full install.

The chances are you need modprobe squashfs in a terminal to load the squashfs module or the installer has failed to include it.... There are bugs related to full installs and puppy not doing such things.

Alternatively you could use the command
unsquashfs -d / /path/to/sfs since your are dumping the lot in anyway..no module needed then.

mike

431user
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat 01 Feb 2014, 22:42

Install questions

#7 Post by 431user »

My Computer

IBM Thinkpad I series 1200
500 MHZ Celeron CPU
16 GB CF card in IDE adapter as HDD 1.47GB currently in use
192MB RAM
Puppy Linux 4.3.1 Full Installation, one partition
Mount point /initrd/mnt/dev_save
200MB swapfile on HDD
Gnome Desktop

I learned of a program, (SFSinstall-0.1.2.pet) in a previous thread and downloaded it. I left-clicked and selected the Puppy Package Manager from the Install page. This was my first experience with a .pet file and it wasn't obvious what to do next. The Package Manager displayed a list from several repositories but no obvious way to select the SFSinstall program. I attempted to type it into the box at the lower left of the screen with the appropriate path but received the message: “Sorry, no matching package name

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#8 Post by mikeb »

just click on the pet.

It will still fail until you have the squashfs module loaded though

mike

Post Reply