MX Linux Forum

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:05 pm**

I just pulled Stevo's backport of Systemback. Installation required some dependency fiddling to run Systemback from GUI (needed at least, I believe, gambas3-gb-gui) on M12 but that may have been an issue with my own Synaptic config.

The program itself is fairly straight forward, bordering on simplistic. It allowed me to have a fully functional, bootable .iso clone of my own system in under an hour. It took a few tries to get it under 4GB which is required for .iso creation (I opted to remove all personal data, private keys, etc.). Now that I understand how it works, I could create a new .iso, start to finish, in under 20 minutes. You also have the choice of creating a bootable flash drive or (non-bootable) full system backups.

As I am using a proprietary ATI driver, I have to boot the .iso with the "Boot live without the xorg.conf file" option.

Everything works.

Really, truly freakin' awesome. I am utterly blown away. I never would have believed it could be that easy.

Go get it!

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:32 pm**

man mkisofs wrote:ISO-9660/JOLIET/UDF filesystems are limited to a maximum size of 8 TB. The maximum size of a single file is 8 TB (single files in UDF are currently limited to aprox. 200 GB). If you like to have files larger than 2 GB, you need to specify -iso-level 3 or above.

The genisoimage program also has the -iso-level option.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:59 pm**

Question: Would it be possible to create a bootable .iso with an installer? I was thinking it might be possible to boot a Live DVD (with installer) in the aufs mode, make some major customizations and tweaks, install Systemback, and make a copy of your customized version that will have the installer in the final .iso copy. Or am I dreaming?

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:41 pm**

I have to confess I haven't used my own package yet, I was planning to try some respins of MX myself with it when it went final, but francofait has been doing his respins using it. I think it uses its own installer on the respins, so your dream may be a reality.

Let me see if it's missing that gambas3-gb-gui package as a dependency.

Edit--yup, it is. I'll add that to the Depends for the relevant packages & rebuild.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:59 pm**

BitJam wrote:
man mkisofs wrote:ISO-9660/JOLIET/UDF filesystems are limited to a maximum size of 8 TB. The maximum size of a single file is 8 TB (single files in UDF are currently limited to aprox. 200 GB). If you like to have files larger than 2 GB, you need to specify -iso-level 3 or above.
The genisoimage program also has the -iso-level option.

The 4GB limitation is inherent to Systemback.

Joany wrote:Question: Would it be possible to create a bootable .iso with an installer?

I suspect it's possible but that is outside my realm of experience.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:44 pm**

@Joany

According to the Systemback dev, you can install live from the .iso (run systemback while live and choose install).

It does not work, for me, on a VM. I'll try installing to hardware in the next few days.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:56 pm**

qtech wrote:@Joany

According to the Systemback dev, you can install live from the .iso (run systemback while live and choose install).

It does not work, for me, on a VM. I'll try installing to hardware in the next few days.

That would be so cool if it works; then it would be just like a remastering tool. I wonder what kind of install Systemback would do. The MEPIS and Antix installers are so beautifully simple and powerful. It would be nice to be able to slipstream them into the live .iso somehow.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:06 pm**

joany wrote:
qtech wrote:@Joany

According to the Systemback dev, you can install live from the .iso (run systemback while live and choose install).

It does not work, for me, on a VM. I'll try installing to hardware in the next few days.
That would be so cool if it works; then it would be just like a remastering tool. I wonder what kind of install Systemback would do. The MEPIS and Antix installers are so beautifully simple and powerful. It would be nice to be able to slipstream them into the live .iso somehow.

Doesn't the remastering tool included in MX and AntiX do this already, though? Maybe someone running francofait's MX respins created with systemback would have the answer, too. The revamped installer in MX is pretty slick, though.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:55 pm**

joany wrote:Question: Would it be possible to create a bootable .iso with an installer? I was thinking it might be possible to boot a Live DVD (with installer) in the aufs mode, make some major customizations and tweaks, install Systemback, and make a copy of your customized version that will have the installer in the final .iso copy. Or am I dreaming?

This might already exist OOTB in MX and antiX with the snapshot tool. I am not certain the snapshot tool runs correctly in Live mode but if it doesn't, it should be easy to modify it so it does. ISTM the snapshot tool is very similar to systemback, but I have not used either of them. Just like snapshot, it should be easy to modify systemback to work on the MX and antiX live systems with these two changes:

Exclude the /live directory when you make the squashfs file
Make sure you write the iso (and large temporary files) to a hard drive (or usb, ssd, etc)***

We are planning to modify the antx2usb tool (or create a new tool) that makes a .iso file or a new LiveUSB directly from a running Live system.

On an MX or antiX LiveUSB you can use the remaster-live command (in the RemasterCC) to remaster the LiveUSB. This is an easy way to make your own customized LiveUSB (assuming you have enough RAM to hold all your filesystem changes before you remaster. If not, then first enable static root persistence).

*** You should be able to determine the type of device with the following command:

Code: Select all

stat -c %t $(df $ISO_FILE | tail -n1 | cut -d" " -f1)

This will print out the major device number. You want it to be either an 8 or a 3. See https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devices.txt

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 7:32 am**

I had not realised that "snapshot" was actually a remastering tool (unfortunate choice of title?).
What is the difference between refracta-snapshot and snapshot tool ?
And does anybody know whether systemback is better than snapshot tool ?

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:11 am**

The snapshot tool in antiX (and now MX) is heavily adapted from the refracta scripts (hence its name). We adapted it since our live boot is not the same as Debian's, nor Ubuntu's, it is 'ours' and it needed changes.

Which is better? I have never tried Systemback (I assumed it was only for Ubuntu and their casper live system).
Why not try them both and decide and let us know.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:25 am**

Ninja'ed by anticapitalista. So I deleted the overlap.

I really don't know which one is better. Perhaps the devs might want to consider merging the two projects since they are doing very similar things.

Over in antiX-land there have been discussions of combining this functionality with the functionality of antix2usb. The mechanics are all very similar. They are all making copies of a system. The only differences are the selection of input and the output:

Code: Select all

    Inputs                  Outputs
    ------                  -------
    installed system        iso file
    Live system             LiveUSB
    iso file                backup
    backup

A user should be able to select any of the input sources (that are available) and from it create any of the outputs. Of course it doesn't make much sense to create an iso file from an iso file or a backup from a backup. The snapshot and systemback programs connect some of the inputs to some of the outputs while the antix2usb makes other connections. We really should connect all we can. Anything less imposes arbitrary and unintuitive limitations.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:38 am**

GuiGuy wrote:I had not realised that "snapshot" was actually a remastering tool (unfortunate choice of title?).
What is the difference between refracta-snapshot and snapshot tool ?
And does anybody know whether systemback is better than snapshot tool ?

This was news to me also. It's great that remastering available as a standard tool. I'm still wondering about the installer. Although it's nice to have a bootable .iso of your system, being able to install a remastered version on a HDD would be a huge plus.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:47 am**

At the moment, once user has created a snapshot.iso it can be installed via the cli-installer. It is not yet in the gui-installer.

The cli-installer is basic, but it gets the job done. You are asked if the install is a remastered/snapshot and you must answer yes.

Note, if user installs propritary graphics, they are disabled on the snapshot.iso

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:49 am**

with antix, the cli-installer is able to install antix-snapshot iso's. The cli-installer is no-frills, but its there. I don't know if its included or even works with MX though. I used it in my video series on building a custom antix system (with xfce strangely) using antix-core.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:26 am**

dolphin_oracle wrote:........... I don't know if its included or even works with MX though. ,,,,,,,,,,,.

cli-installer-mx seems to be included in MX.
Don't know if it works, or even how to run it.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:30 am**

GuiGuy wrote:
dolphin_oracle wrote:........... I don't know if its included or even works with MX though. ,,,,,,,,,,,.
cli-installer-mx seems to be included in MX.
Don't know if it works, or even how to run it.

It is in the live boot menu as ... wait for it ... drum roll etc

Command Line Install.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:32 am**

if its there, then the command is

"cli-installer" as root.

So you use antix2usb or unetbootin to make a bootable liveUSB (or burn a disk) of your snapshot iso, and run the "cli-installer" as root from the live session.

Its not as polished as the gui-installer, but it will install an antix-snapshot iso.

***edit*** ninja'd by anti.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:37 am**

anticapitalista wrote:It is in the live boot menu as ... wait for it ... drum roll etc

Command Line Install.

Thanks, Anti.
I was trying to run it from my installed system

Edit:-
I am still confused: if I put the snapshot.iso onto a DVD and live-boot from it, it will not offer a gui installer but it will offer a CLI installer ?

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 11:37 am**

I was running francofait's MX-KDE Systemback remaster off a unetbootin USB to check it out. There's a Systemback launcher in the taskbar that comes up with the installer dialog right away, though I didn't run it. As well as making complete backups/ remasters, it also does system restore points, as in Windows or the Timeshift program in the CR.

The program is written in gambas, which is some kind of GAM Basic...i.e. text files that get run by the gambas interpreter. It did require a backport of gambas3 from Jessie to work, though.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:37 pm**

I'm getting a report that the menu entries don't launch a systemback GUI, that is, you don't get a root login dialog, or the message that something else has apt locked. Has anyone else seen this--I can't reproduce it.

Update:
Tim read the source code and found out why--it looks for a file in your /home called .Xauthority, and won't launch if missing. Rebuilt using gksu to get root authorization to get around this, should be in repos soon.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:13 pm**

GuiGuy wrote:
anticapitalista wrote:It is in the live boot menu as ... wait for it ... drum roll etc

Command Line Install.
Thanks, Anti.
I was trying to run it from my installed system

Edit:-
I am still confused: if I put the snapshot.iso onto a DVD and live-boot from it, it will not offer a gui installer but it will offer a CLI installer ?

As I said, there is only the cli-installer option at the moment.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:23 pm**

Stevo wrote:I'm getting a report that the menu entries don't launch a systemback GUI, that is, you don't get a root login dialog, or the message that something else has apt locked. Has anyone else seen this--I can't reproduce it.

upp...

> removed text

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:31 pm**

Wheezy squashfs is now using squashfs-xz by default, which allows for what was maybe 820-850 MB with the older compression to now fit in 700 MB. It's still amazing that there's all these programs plus LibreOffice on there--I remember when I first tried a 700 MB Ubuntu disc years and years ago, and there was almost nothing on it compared to the MEPIS at the time.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:16 pm**

Stevo wrote:I'm getting a report that the menu entries don't launch a systemback GUI, that is, you don't get a root login dialog, or the message that something else has apt locked. Has anyone else seen this--I can't reproduce it.

Tracked it down. If the ~/.Xauthority file is missing then Systemback exits with a popup saying it can't connect to the X-Server. It doesn't have to a correct .Xauthority file - there just has to be one. One of my machines nearly always fails to get one when it should at install time. Can't figure out why. Just oddball hardware I guess. Stevo fixed the debs anyway to eliminate that problem. If you have Synaptic open you will get the message that something has apt locked - because it's true.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:45 pm**

The .Xauthority file should be created anew. It should not be distributed. This would be akin to giving everyone the same root password. The .Xauthority file contains some random data called a cookie that acts like a password to gain access to the X-server.

This is one of the main differences between xinit and startx. The startx program calls xinit but it first secures access to the X-server by setting up authorization. You can look in the startx script for a (perhaps poor) example of how to set up X authorization.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:18 pm**

OK...we aren't messing with that file, though. I just changed the .desktop launcher files for the GUI part of Systemback to use gksu to get root, instead of the method that is built into gambas3.

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:35 pm**

Stevo wrote:OK...we aren't messing with that file, though. I just changed the .desktop launcher files for the GUI part of Systemback to use gksu to get root, instead of the method that is built into gambas3.

I wish I could be of some help to you but I got lazy and frustrated at some point and just threw the kitchen sink at it. I can say that both gtk and qt4 versions are fully functional. For what their worth, the commit logs are below.

Code: Select all

Commit Log for Fri Mar 21 23:18:14 2014

Installed the following packages:
systemback (0.7.7.501-1mcr120+1)
systemback-gtk (0.7.7.501-1mcr120+1)
systemback-gui (0.7.7.501-1mcr120+1)
systemback-gui-common (0.7.7.501-1mcr120+1)
systemback-qt4 (0.7.7.501-1mcr120+1)
unionfs-fuse (0.24-2.2)

Code: Select all

Commit Log for Fri Mar 21 23:29:54 2014

Installed the following packages:
gambas3-gb-gtk-opengl (3.5.2-1mcr120+1)
gambas3-gb-gui (3.5.2-1mcr120+1)
gambas3-gb-gui-opengl (3.5.2-1mcr120+1)
gambas3-gb-opengl (3.5.2-1mcr120+1)
gambas3-gb-qt4-opengl (3.5.2-1mcr120+1)
libgtkglext1 (1.2.0-2)

Posted: **Sun Mar 23, 2014 10:51 pm**

gambas3-gb-gui is the critical package that was missing. The new version will have that as a dependency.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:53 am**

Isn't it just a whole lot easier to boot a Live-USB, set it up the way you want it, add/remove apps as you wish and then run the remastercc tool before you close off your live-session?

This remastercc creates an alternative antix/linuxfs file on your USB stick with the extension .new and it contains all your changes to the installed base, minus user settings unless you copy them to the /etc/skel folder.
When you next boot, the original antix/linuxfs file is renamed to /antix/linuxfs.old and the .new is removed from the fresh linuxfs file so it becomes the standard boot selection by becoming the /antix/linuxfs compressed file system loaded as the OS. When you're satisfied that all is well, you can just delete the original file now renamed linuxfs.old and have your own fully customised boot USB.

If you have a relatively small amount of RAM, simply fire up the System profiler and benchmark tool (hardinfo) and keep it on the summary screen, you'll see your RAM usage in real time and you can keep consuming RAM until you have about 50Mb remaining, then run the remastercc to lock in your changes. If you can't do enough in one hit because you have too little RAM, do it over several boots and you can opt to lose the oldest backup of the linuxfs file.

If you also include isomaster, you can take edit the original ISO to remove the original /antix/linuxfs file and replace it with your modified version, then save the whole thing as a new ISO file and viola, you have both a live-USB and a fresh Live-ISO image that can be burned to CD/DVD while retaining the grub boot prompts, cheatcodes and the improved MX installer, but your original ISO is untouched because you have a new one that you made yourself.

Doing it this way, no changes are made to the grub boot menu offered on the live-ISO, but the installed OS is whatever you have on the ISO or live-USB and it can be used with unetbootin or the antix2usb script because it's a regular ISO, albeit a bit larger because you've added to it.

I used this process to make a fully customised multimedia ISO from RC2. I saved a new ISO of this build which measured 1.5GB and created a Live-USB using the new ISO. It starts like RC2 but it is better suited to media production, and it includes all the updates up to the point of running the remastercc. It installs perfectly using the MX installer.

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:03 pm**

m_pav wrote:Isn't it just a whole lot easier...

Probably, except that I use Mepis.

<snip>

[Last portion moved to a thread of its own]

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:13 pm**

You can specify what sub-forum to search in to avoid the issue you presented with search.

MX-14 is a creation of this community. This community has developed it, and helped to debug it.It has used ideas and code from both Mepis and Antix. I see no conflict in supporting it on this Forum.

It is natural for most of the recent posts to be MX related as it is new, and not as settled as Mepis. However I see no conflict in supporting both and fail to see how this disrespects Warren.

EDIT: Also if there is further discussion on this it should be as a new thread. This is off topic to Systemback

Here is the link to the thread in which to post this subject'

http://forum.mepiscommunity.org/viewtop ... 78&t=35810

Posted: **Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:18 pm**

qtech wrote:
m_pav wrote:Isn't it just a whole lot easier...
Probably, except that I use Mepis.

OT- Please consider this an open letter to the community meant to encourage creative and constructive conversation. This is not an effort to be divisive or to troll. I, as a community member, am addressing what I perceive to be a growing issue that effects the survival and continuity of the community (regardless of whether or not Mepis is actually "dead"). This deserves it's own thread but I'm doing it here because it contextually lends credence and is a perfect example of my point.

Let me begin by making it clear that I mean no disrespect to the tremendous efforts involved in the creation of MX (and no, this is not directed at m_pav or any individual community member).

MX is consuming this forum. And it is doing so at the expense of Warren's efforts and reputation and at the expense of those who choose to use Mepis. Again, do not misunderstand, I greatly respect and admire the communities accomplishment in the creation of MX. I've tried it and it is impressive. But it has very little to do with Warren's creation(s) upon which is the origin and foundation that this community is built. MX is not Mepis and Mepis is still my choice of OS.

I offer a simple example of the problem: A few days ago, I broke something on my M12 install and knew that the solution was here on the forum (as I'd encountered the same problem in the past). I used the search feature to locate the thread that I needed. Yet because MX had a similar issue (and because the search feature can not easily discern between Mepis and MX), the first 15 pages of search results were for MX. I could not find the thread that I needed to fix Mepis.

Or consider this: If a new user installs Mepis and joins the forum, imagine their confusion when they see thread after thread about MX which is Mepis but also isn't Mepis along with some Mate and KDE remixes and references to AntiX all muddled together. Things must be confusing enough with M12 stuck in beta and new folks trying to discern whether M12 is 11.9.86 or 11.0.12.

If MX is to be a long term project, than it is time for MX to follow the path of Antix and to create its own website and forum. If for no other reason than out of respect for Warren's years of hard work (regardless of whether or not Mepis is "dead") and out of respect to those belonging to the Mepis community who desire to continue to use Mepis.

It is time for MX to stand on its own two feet.

I think your reply should "stand on its own two feet" too, as a topic of it's own, either in 'General Topics' or whatever other subforum a moderator thinks is appropriate, not tacked on as a post in this thread.

Posted: **Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:07 am**

Addendum to my earlier post re: remastering

RAM usage is not enough to keep an eye on. Periodically check your remaining hard disk space by right clicking on any folder and selecting properties and keep an eye on the available hard disk space.

You can reclaim heaps of space by running bleachbit as root. So far, I have spent about 90mins fine tuning MX as I like it and the resultant ISO will be in the vicinity of 1.5GB, and I have not had to reboot or run the remastercc even once. Looks like I'll get my standard kit built in one hit, less the mega multimedia items I use personally.

Posted: **Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:20 am**

And the results.....

the linuxfs.new will become the new default at next boot with this live-USB

MX Linux Forum

Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)

Re: Systemback (Stevo for President!)