On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:03:35 +0100, Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 15:59 +0100, Martin Bříza wrote:
> I've been working on the facelift for a while now.
> I think most of this leering is caused by the fact it's not promoted
> very well (except a bunch of mails to Desktop and Devel lists I sent in
> the past).
> Except not being able to add a (buggy) permanent overlay for your
> Currently, I'm writing a Mac backend to the tool, which is kinda
> challenging provided there's no up-to-date version of syslinux. It's
> possible we'll be able to only dd on Mac.
FWIW, I think a sane design for luc in this day and age should be dd
only. IIRC the *only* benefits of the non-dd mode are:
1) allow for non-destructive write
2) allow for overlays (persistence)
My opinion is that 1) is entirely uninteresting these days. It made
sense back when USB sticks cost 50 bucks. It doesn't make sense when
you get them free with a box of Cap'n Crunch and everyone has fifty of
them stuck down the back of the couch.
2) is more interesting, but if it doesn't work anyway...well :) it's a
bit fuzzy in my mind, but IIRC someone said it was entirely feasible to
do overlays with a dd write; basically you'd write the image with dd
then fiddle about a bit afterwards to create the overlays. That seems
like something worth exploring.
Another note - I don't know if this is already how it's designed, but I
think it would be *really* nice if an overhaul of luc including making
it somewhat generic/modular: i.e. things like the list of image
downloads and branding should be modules, so that the tool could be
shared between distributions. Most distros produce hybridized ISOs
these days and to me it'd make a whole lot of sense if we all
collaborated on *one* graphical tool for downloading ISOs and writing
them to USB sticks, rather than having a dozen different ones.
1) Is not really a reason for non-destructive image writing - I'd say
there's a third reason - it's hard to revert the iso partition scheme, as
I mentioned in an other mail to Christian in this thread.
2) Yeah, adding another patition could be done quite easily I think, at
least in Linux and on Mac. Probably more reliably too. Not sure how to
solve this from inside the live image though.
Ad. modularity: It's pretty generic in my opinion - there is an occasional
Fedora string here and there but overall these would be easy to remove. If
you'd want to add your own distro/product/whatever, you'd just have to
write your own provider of links to images, along with their descriptions
and optionally some additional data like release date, version or links to
For Fedora, this is done by a PyQuery parser of the getfedora.org
websites, that harvests all text that's stored there to present it in LUC
You could possibly do that for other distros too if you'd want. Depends if
folks from the other distros notice this and decide it's useful to them. I
guess we could cooperate but until then, Fedora only.