[Fedora-livecd-list] RFC- proposal for livecd filesystem layout changes

[Tim Wood]

I just wrote a basic select a scsi or ata device bash script in  
zenity.  I added /dev/live.  Nothing fancy but it should save you a  
few minutes.

Tim Wood
________________________________________

TITLE="Set Backup Drive"
MESSAGE="Select a drive to use for backups"
FLAGS="--list --radiolist --column Pick --column Device"

devices=`cd /dev/;ls hd*;ls sd*; ls live`

CHOICES=""
PICK="True"
for device in $devices; do
   CHOICES="$CHOICES $PICK $device"
   PICK="False"
done

COMMAND="zenity --title \"$TITLE\" --text \"$MESSAGE\" $FLAGS $CHOICES"
echo $COMMAND

DEVICE=$(zenity --title "$TITLE" --text "$MESSAGE" $FLAGS $CHOICES)
________________________________________


On Sep 20, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Douglas McClendon wrote:

> I could throw together a ghetto zenity gui pretty quickly.  The  
> only user interaction is
>
> a) selecting iso
>   - for the gui, this could be handled by zenity file-selection, or  
> the default would be to use /dev/live if it exists (i.e. /dev/live  
> is the accessible block device representing the currently booted  
> livecd).
>
> b) bypassing checkisomd5 if it fails
>   - this is easily enough a zenity question, or perhaps just make  
> it a pure failure case for the gui
>
> c) livecd-iso-to-disk result text output, either success, or  
> failure for some reason.  Easy enough to dump to a zenity dialog.
>
> I'm curious, what kind of deadlines should I be thinking about for  
> this and other livecd related things.
>
> I.e. the f8 devel freeze is Oct 4th, as of f8t3 release.  But then  
> there is an f8t3 devel freeze as of Sept 25th (along with  
> translation freeze).
>
> What sort of development is considered acceptable between those two  
> dates?
>
> Obviously I would like to get anything in by say... tonight, so  
> that Jeremy has time to decide to accept it and commit it  before  
> tuesday, and then not try to get anything in after that.
>
> And would this theoretical gui livecd-iso-to-disk separate package  
> fall outside the scope of even the oct-4th devel freeze, because it  
> is a 'new' package?
>
> -dmc