New ISOs in ce/testing

SolydXK is too quiet for you? SolydXK Enthusiast Editions, based on Debian Testing is for you! Here you can find news about Debian Testing and Unstable too, and also tests on SolydXK programs.
The support for SolydXK EE is provided by the community.
User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9219
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 29 Jun 2016 14:46

It's not that.
I rebuilt SolydK32 with the constructor and it booted fine in EFI just to find out that your ISO was missing /EFI/BOOT/bootia32.efi

Do you want me to rebuild the other ISOs as well?

I also noticed that you chose to use firefox instead of firefox-esr. Is that intentional?


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2139
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby grizzler » 29 Jun 2016 15:50

Schoelje wrote:It's not that.
I rebuilt SolydK32 with the constructor and it booted fine in EFI just to find out that your ISO was missing /EFI/BOOT/bootia32.efi
That's odd. That's the bit that gets embedded in the efi boot image. The code here definitely creates it and I can see its header in the built ISO's boot image as well. There must be something wrong with it or with how it's entered into the ISO.

The problem is, it doesn't unpack (the Constructor doesn't unpack it either and I haven't yet tried figuring out whether that's actually doable or not). So you can't easily check that what was created in the build structure actually ended up correctly in the ISO. I can't see any obvious differences when I compare the relevant bits of your SolydX 64 with my SolydX EE 64.
Do you want me to rebuild the other ISOs as well?
Thanks, but I need to get this fixed. I'll recheck the code.
I also noticed that you chose to use firefox instead of firefox-esr. Is that intentional?
Yes, that's what 'the community' wanted when we started the CEs.
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9219
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 29 Jun 2016 16:31

It's the function "build_efi_image" in solydxk.py in the constructor: https://github.com/SolydXK/solydxk-cons ... xk.py#L432

It is fired whenever the constructor builds a new ISO and that's the reason why it's not extracted when you unpack an ISO.


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2139
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby grizzler » 29 Jun 2016 16:54

Yes, I know. I transferred that code to my own scripts shortly after you produced the Constructor version that used the new EFI method.

The boot images are actually there in all four ISOs. I checked with Engrampa, MATE's archive tool, and a hex editor. The [BOOT] section has the correct two 'files' and the second one - the actual boot image, which is also in the isolinux directory as efiboot.img - does have the FAT directory entries for EFI, BOOT and BOOTX64.EFI or EFI, BOOT and BOOTIA32.EFI at offsets 0xE20, 0x4E40 and 0x5640 in all of them. So that isn't the problem. What I need to figure out is why they aren't 'seen'.
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9219
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 29 Jun 2016 17:13

I checked your efiboot.img by mounting it and it had EFI/BOOT/bootia32.efi.
However, I saw that yours has a different size: 765Kb to mine 755Kb.


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2139
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby grizzler » 29 Jun 2016 17:48

Curious. I would have expected mine to be smaller as it doesn't have ext2 and ntfscomp in the modules list twice. I have no idea whether that's relevant, though. Don't know when/if I changed that. The modules list itself was taken from a much older version of the Constructor.

The resulting files may be essentially the same, but the grub-mkimage tool that builds them is bound to be of a different version and so are the modules themselves. The grub-common package that tool belongs to is 2.02~beta2-36 on my machine. Probably 2.02~beta2-22+deb8u1 on yours.

Would it be useful to add those two duplicates to the modules list and create an ISO to test? Somehow that doesn't make sense, but this is software... :?

Never mind. It's supposed to take the modules from the chrooted system (isn't it?), so they should be the same. I wonder if that's where this is going wrong...

Never mind the never mind. No it isn't... :lol:
[I'm too tired for this today - continuing tomorrow...]
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
belze
Posts: 221
Joined: 29 Sep 2014 16:31
Location: Torino, Italy

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby belze » 29 Jun 2016 20:43

you two are super-cool :clap:
-------
Image

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9219
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 29 Jun 2016 20:55

Double modules? Didn't know that...will take a look at it tomorrow.


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9219
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 29 Jun 2016 21:05

Okay, a quick test with removed double modules and a newly built SolydK32 still boots...
If you are building the ISOs on EE then I suppose that could be the problem. I'm building the ISOs on a regular (stable) system.
The efi file is still 755Kb.


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2139
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby grizzler » 30 Jun 2016 09:22

The CEs have never been built on anything but EE. Hasn't been a problem so far, but I suppose it's possible.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with the boot image as such. This
What I need to figure out is why they aren't 'seen'.
was a red herring, because they are seen. They are running. And producing the grub prompt.
If you enter:

Code: Select all

set prefix=($root)/boot/grub
configfile $prefix/grub.cfg
the GRUB menu appears (provided $root is set correctly) and off you go without further issues. So apparently the embedded config file is the thing that isn't being 'seen'. Or rather that causes problems, because its first line (search --file --set=root /.solydxk) produces a "no such device" error. Not just with .solydxk but with anything in the root of the image. No idea (yet) what that's about.
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2139
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby grizzler » 30 Jun 2016 10:59

Uploading a new SolydX EE 64 now. Could you check if this one works on UEFI systems? If it does, I'll rebuild the others.

It looks like the fixed kde-l10n packages have migrated to Testing, so SolydK EEs may be useable as well.

Edit
I'm uploading all of them anyway...
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9219
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 30 Jun 2016 18:56

First impressions: booting and start menu:

SolydK32 boots OK. There is a favorite to Firefox ESR in the start menu instead of Firefox.
SolydX32 boots OK. There is NO favorite to Firefox in the start menu.

SolydK32 EE with mormal (first) menu ends in black screen. Safe menu boots OK (because it includes nomodeset). VM menu (includes nomodeset) boots OK. What's that semi-transparant square in the left top corner?
SolydX32 EE: see SolydK32 EE. There is NO favorite to Firefox in the start menu.

SolydK64 EE: see SolydK32 EE
SolydX64 EE: see SolydK32 EE. There is NO favorite to Firefox in the start menu.


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2139
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby grizzler » 30 Jun 2016 19:19

Thanks for testing. I didn't really look at the favourites menu this time, because I assumed its setup hadn't really changed. I'll check it out.

The semi transparant square is a Plasma5 widget (I forget what it's called) which has been around since the first KDE5 EEs. I haven't got a clue what it is for exactly, because I'm not a KDE user. It may have been less conspicuous on earlier versions because of the folder widget (which no longer exists, if I'm not mistaken).

Did you test the SolydK EE boot that ended in a black screen on metal?
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9219
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 30 Jun 2016 20:13

grizzler wrote:Did you test the SolydK EE boot that ended in a black screen on metal?
I only had time for testing in VB.


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2139
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby grizzler » 30 Jun 2016 20:37

Ah, it's the expected behaviour then (you had me worried there for a moment... :lol: ). The current VBox still locks up if the live boot doesn't have nomodeset.
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2139
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby grizzler » 30 Jun 2016 21:49

The firefox-esr.desktop entries in kickoff (SolydK 32) and whisker menus (all SolydXs - they don't show up but they are there...) are set by solyd(k|x)-system-adjustments (/usr/share/solydxk/default-settings/kde4-profile/default/share/config/kickoffrc and /etc/skel/.config/xfce4/panel/whiskermenu-9.rc respectively). I can change the files in the ISOs, but those changes will be overwritten whenever the packages are upgraded*). That won't show up for the current user, but it will for any newly added one.

How do we handle this? Postinst? Separate packages for EEs won't be enough (bad idea anyway, IMO...), because the 32-bit stable ones also have non-esr (that was a community decision at the time).

______________________________________________
*) the user may be queried about that for the X, because its file is marked as conffile - the K's file isn't
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
belze
Posts: 221
Joined: 29 Sep 2014 16:31
Location: Torino, Italy

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby belze » 30 Jun 2016 21:58

grizzler wrote:[...] 32-bit stable ones also have non-esr (that was a community decision at the time).
we can override this decision in order to simplify processes and standardize a bit.
Lastly - but this is way out of my skills - we can use esr as default and give, thanks to welcome screen, the choice to switch to non-esr, which will put the right file in the right place for the right users.
-------
Image

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9219
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 01 Jul 2016 05:09

I can use /usr/lib/solydxk/system/adjust.py (solydxk-system) to check whether Firefox ESR or Firefox is installed and adapt the file accordingly. This would also work when the user manually changes to Firefox. Any other solution would need quite some development time.


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2139
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby grizzler » 01 Jul 2016 06:13

Using adjust.py sounds good.
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
belze
Posts: 221
Joined: 29 Sep 2014 16:31
Location: Torino, Italy

Re: New ISOs in ce/testing

Postby belze » 01 Jul 2016 07:19

Schoelje wrote:I can use /usr/lib/solydxk/system/adjust.py (solydxk-system) to check whether Firefox ESR or Firefox is installed and adapt the file accordingly. This would also work when the user manually changes to Firefox. Any other solution would need quite some development time.
This sounds very very good!
-------
Image


Return to “Testing Zone”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest