Merging liveCD and Install CD

[Andrew Green]

I have been thinking about what will be needed for my gsoc proposal.

Merging the live cd and install cd of React OS is one of the goals.
Though the file structure is different on the install and live cd.

The install cd has all the React OS files in a cab file. While live cd
has everything in a folder.
I do understand the differences are larger than this. Though this has
a large duplication of files. I assume having the files in folders is
the best solution because the live cd needs access to the files
directly.

I was wondering what peoples preferred methods would be.

People mentioned various things on irc. like extracting from the cab
file on the fly, or installing the cab to ram disk and so on.

I was wondering what peoples views is on what they would want. Feel
free to say your preferences. I may not choose the best solution in my
proposal because I will only have 3 or 4 weeks to work on that part.

I personally don't think loosing the 100mb of saved space from the cab
is a bad thing. It will still fit on 1 cd(i'm guessing 150-200mb) and
is better than burning 2 cds(1 for live and 1 for install).

Any comments or advice are much appreciated.

[Olaf Siejka]

The most obvious impact i see is that iso.reactos.org will be able to hold
less revisions. Same thing with storage for my Windows-based builds.

2011/3/28 Andrew Green [e-mail]
> I have been thinking about what will be needed for my gsoc proposal.
>
> Merging the live cd and install cd of React OS is one of the goals.
> Though the file structure is different on the install and live cd.
>
> The install cd has all the React OS files in a cab file. While live cd
> has everything in a folder.
> I do understand the differences are larger than this. Though this has
> a large duplication of files. I assume having the files in folders is
> the best solution because the live cd needs access to the files
> directly.
>
> I was wondering what peoples preferred methods would be.
>
> People mentioned various things on irc. like extracting from the cab
> file on the fly, or installing the cab to ram disk and so on.
>
> I was wondering what peoples views is on what they would want. Feel
> free to say your preferences. I may not choose the best solution in my
> proposal because I will only have 3 or 4 weeks to work on that part.
>
> I personally don't think loosing the 100mb of saved space from the cab
> is a bad thing. It will still fit on 1 cd(i'm guessing 150-200mb) and
> is better than burning 2 cds(1 for live and 1 for install).
>
> Any comments or advice are much appreciated.
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Andrew Green]

O also.if you actually have a look at http://iso.reactos.org/
livecd(no cab) vs bootcd(cab) size you will notice the livecd is
smaller. This is due to 7z compression. So i don't think this should
be an issue. It will only be bigger in size when as a plain iso file
though.

Though of course including the cab and the the livecd files will be
bigger. Plus if everything was done with no cab. The only difference
between discs would be changing freeldr.ini
I feel like i just unconvinced myself to use cab, after I was told I
should use cab ><.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Olaf Siejka [e-mail] wrote:
> The most obvious impact i see is that iso.reactos.org will be able to hold
> less revisions. Same thing with storage for my Windows-based builds.
>
> 2011/3/28 Andrew Green [e-mail]
> > I have been thinking about what will be needed for my gsoc proposal.
> >
> > Merging the live cd and install cd of React OS is one of the goals.
> > Though the file structure is different on the install and live cd.
> >
> > The install cd has all the React OS files in a cab file. While live cd
> > has everything in a folder.
> > I do understand the differences are larger than this. Though this has
> > a large duplication of files. I assume having the files in folders is
> > the best solution because the live cd needs access to the files
> > directly.
> >
> > I was wondering what peoples preferred methods would be.
> >
> > People mentioned various things on irc. like extracting from the cab
> > file on the fly, or installing the cab to ram disk and so on.
> >
> > I was wondering what peoples views is on what they would want. Feel
> > free to say your preferences. I may not choose the best solution in my
> > proposal because I will only have 3 or 4 weeks to work on that part.
> >
> > I personally don't think loosing the 100mb of saved space from the cab
> > is a bad thing. It will still fit on 1 cd(i'm guessing 150-200mb) and
> > is better than burning 2 cds(1 for live and 1 for install).
> >
> > Any comments or advice are much appreciated.
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Colin Finck]

Andrew Green wrote:
> I was wondering what peoples preferred methods would be.

Put the files to be installed into a single CAB file (ReactOS style), 
multiple CAB files (NT5 style) or some other container (NT6 style), but 
don't just use the system files the Live-CD needs to run.
ROS shall be installable from a minimal Live-CD system. We cannot ensure 
that this minimal system includes _all_ components that can be 
installed. Also this stuff should be properly separated to allow things 
such as installing ROS under Windows.
It's certainly possible to just put all files uncompressed on the 
Live-CD, but cleaner and more flexible in the long-term if we separate 
this stuff.

The additional space on the CD should be neglectable for any reasonable 
solution. LZMA compression already makes a Live-CD smaller than a 
Boot-CD, so even a minimal Live-CD plus already compressed files of a 
Boot-CD shouldn't consume that much more space on our servers.

- Colin

[Andrew Green]

There are a few things I want to change. The textmode installer uses
windows dll's that are identical to the livecd ones. Though they are
stored in different locations for example ntoskrnl.exe is in reactos
on bootcd and reactos/system32 on livecd. Also currently the textmode
installer just replaces smss.exe to boot the installer(which would
ruin a live cd ). So I am proposing text mode installer exe be called
usetup.exe and change the ntoskrnl to load usetup depending on the
boot options from freeldr(also the code seems to hint that smss.exe
location should be loaded from registry. I'm not sure what would be
the correct way at the moment).

It sounds like People still want to be able to build different cd's.
I suppose if there are separate builds of disks they should inherit
from the one below them. Heres an example

A text mode installer should contain the minimal files to do the job..
A gui installer should contain the the textmode installer files + the
ones needed just for the gui installer.
live cd should conain the gui installer files + extra system files.
live cd with apps should of course add apps onto the previous livecd.

Also this should be easy to maintain. so that any dependencies that
are added or removed will effect the cd type that inherits from it.

Also i was just thinking the option might be to combine. so to get a
install and live cd would be make "bootcd + livecd" or to just get
live cd with no installer would be make "livecd".

At this point I'm' thinking of keeping the cab file for the installer.
For simplicity mostly. It has been recommended that files are needed
to run the cd will be removed from the cab and the installer will
check the cd and the cab. Though that could be painful.

Any comments or suggestions are more than welcome, as it is coming
down to the due date for proposals.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> Andrew Green wrote:
> > I was wondering what peoples preferred methods would be.
>
> Put the files to be installed into a single CAB file (ReactOS style),
> multiple CAB files (NT5 style) or some other container (NT6 style), but
> don't just use the system files the Live-CD needs to run.
> ROS shall be installable from a minimal Live-CD system. We cannot ensure
> that this minimal system includes _all_ components that can be installed.
> Also this stuff should be properly separated to allow things such as
> installing ROS under Windows.
> It's certainly possible to just put all files uncompressed on the Live-CD,
> but cleaner and more flexible in the long-term if we separate this stuff.
>
> The additional space on the CD should be neglectable for any reasonable
> solution. LZMA compression already makes a Live-CD smaller than a Boot-CD,
> so even a minimal Live-CD plus already compressed files of a Boot-CD
> shouldn't consume that much more space on our servers.
> Colin
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev