Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

The 'blame' for this ease of use is attributed to 1 of these 3 people: @rockedge, @radky , or @amethyst; Why am I saying blame, you might ask; because there are 2 utilities in the BKWP64's Menus: namely one in Setup and one in Utility.

This about the utility in Menu>Setup>Remaster Puppy Classic

The reason to ONLY use this is that it offers to automatically (with your help) create a bootable ISO of your running BKWP64

Follow ALL instructions until you get to this screen where you will copy the contents of your ISO file to the folder the utilty prepared for you on screen. Before doing so, PLEASE understand that the instructions indicate to NOT copy the BKWP64 SFS file from the ISO file's content. When your copy is completed, allow the instruction box to continue where, when it completes you will see an ISO file in the on-screen folder.

That ISO file is bootable from

• any launcher on bare-metal

• directly from GRUB2 on bare-metal

• directly from a VM such as QEMU

• directly from any launcher booted in a VM such as QEMU

Tests conducted

• Bare-metal tests

  • Tested laumchers, thus far, are VEntoy and SG2D launching directly to PUP's desktop

  • Tested direct ISO file via GRUB2 booting directly to PUP's desktop

  VM tests

  • Tested direct ISO file booting within a VM directly to PUP's desktop

  • Tested booting from a launcher booted in a VM directly to PUP's desktop

Thanks to all who have contributed to the remastering mechanisms over time.

Please add or contribute ANY finding that would helpful to a worthy remastering experience.

BUG Found

The very last utility screen gives instructions on which button is required to complete your desire: namely "Yes" or "No"

If you select Yes your remaster ISO is created as you would expect. BUT 'No" ALSO creates against your desire.

@Clarity The remaster script looks for any bootloader files (like isolinux.bin for example) in the building folder if you selected to make an ISO. If it finds it it will make the ISO anyway it seems (also, if it does not find a bootloader, no iso will be created even if you selected yes). So what, just delete the unwanted iso (and the other files you copied over unnecessarily) then. Importantly - why did you select to make an ISO (tick the box) in the start option menu when you didn't want to make an ISO (not ticking the box would have avoided this whole situation)? Also - The text says that if you want to make an iso, add some files. So why did you add the other files in the first place if you didn't actually want to make an ISO? Warped logic and wrong input/selection by the user. BTW - Don't play any blame games here, it's totally unnecessary and uncalled for (especially if you don't use the application correctly). And another thing - The reason why this remaster script uses a manual method (requiring user input) to make an ISO, is because one may not have the original ISO anymore so it describes what is necessary to build a bootable and working ISO even if you don't have the original iso anymore (with the builtin remaster script you MUST have the ISO otherwise you can't do the remaster and you also don't have the option not to make an iso as far as I can recall). Barry should get the credit for the original puppy remaster (builtin) script. Anyways - I may change the selection boxes there in a newer release sometime (I'll only do this if I'm going to add some other applications or make drastic changes to the suite or the current scripts, so no promise). I think of making it only an OK option so if you choose to make an ISO, you make an ISO.

... Don't play any blame games here, it's totally unnecessary and uncalled for .... ....

A bug report is a bug report, a bug is a bug and no is no (should be).

fredx181 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 8:00 am

... Don't play any blame games here, it's totally unnecessary and uncalled for .... ....

A bug report is a bug report, a bug is a bug and no is no (should be).

Are you telling me what to say now? Blaming me for what is originally in the builtin remaster script. Bugger off you and him. Anyways I'm taking down all my work on this forum. Shit attitude by some people. I'm leaving the forum. cheers.

amethyst wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 9:02 am

fredx181 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 8:00 am

... Don't play any blame games here, it's totally unnecessary and uncalled for .... ....

A bug report is a bug report, a bug is a bug and no is no (should be).

Are you telling me what to say now? Blaming me for what is originally in the builtin remaster script. Bugger off you and him. Anyways I'm taking down all my work on this forum. Shit attitude by some people. I'm leaving the forum. cheers.

All I'm saying is that : @Claritty tested the application, found a bug and reported it, nothing wrong with that and no need to get upset about IMHO.
But probably I have missed something about the history (authors ?) of the remaster application(s), sorry.

@amethyst I am not sure what you are saying???

I was testing a utilty that ships with this PUP. It appears that there are 2 utility that 'may' be associated with your work in the PUP I have.

For the utility in the BKWP's Menu>Setup I used it to demonstrate how to use to build a Remaster ISO file. That was the objective. The OP post show success.

The utiltiy is a single one-way threaded utilty. Thats NOT a complaint.
If upon reaching and using the step shown in the 'bug' report any user CHOOSES to not want to build an ISO for any reason (for example maybe they remember something and wanted to restart the effort for ANY REASON) the user may choose to take the "NO" as that utility screen indicates. The user is NOT doing anything unusual by their choice to abandon the build at this point. AND the utility instructs the user to do so if the ISO is unwanted. In fact, in the screen, the very last line "instructs the user" unconditionally.

You may have some pent up anger about something that is misunderstood on this. OR there are other things affecting your position. There was NOT one word in this thread from me that is blaming you or anyone.

If its NOT a bug and it is normal, then please explain how a user 'should' abandon the desire for an ISO at any time when at this point. And if need, the screen and/or instructions could be amended such the 'NO' button can be explained or changed; if "NO does not mean NO".

Not sure what/who you are directing your anger. And not sure 'why' you arrived at your explanation, earlier.

Peace!