overdue-scratch

Author Topic: Revisit Chameleon's package builder  (Read 106527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Azimutz

  • VoodooLabs
  • Posts: 420
  • Paranoid Android
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #150 on: November 30, 2010, 08:32:18 PM »
Hi guys...
sorry for not giving much help on this; a bootloader installer is not a priority to me, but the main reason is really lack of time.
Anyway, i've been following the progress and you guys are all congratulated for your efforts :)

Blackosx, about the hidden (or not) boot file, i already voted on the IM topic for a visible boot file, simply because it's easier for everyone, from devs (while testing) to noobs (while ignoring the file is hidden).
I also think no permissions should be set on the file; leaving that for later since i still didn't had time to check sources, but i believe that's happening since i'm getting a Unix Executable (dark icon) on some tests installing to disk images.

About your last question, SetFile is included on the latest official pkg, under EnhancedHFS.pkg(Standart.pkg)/scripts/tools (checked with Pacifist, under Resorces tab); on the trunk, check /package/buildpkg, lines 60, 68 & 76 for when it's added there. So, i guess you can include it on the pkg; but, there's an alternative that's already in the system without XCode, the "chflags <hidden/nohidden>" command... that's what i use all the time for the purpose.



Now to a more serious matter...
Code: [Select]
/dev/disk0
   #:                       TYPE NAME                    SIZE       IDENTIFIER
   0:     FDisk_partition_scheme                        *320.1 GB   disk0
   1:               Windows_NTFS Windows 7               64.4 GB    disk0s1
   2:                      Linux                         32.2 GB    disk0s2
   3:               Windows_NTFS test                    8.6 GB     disk0s3 (this one it's in fact a ExFAT fs)
   4:                  Apple_HFS Hyperspace              214.8 GB   disk0s4
/dev/disk1
   #:                       TYPE NAME                    SIZE       IDENTIFIER
   0:      GUID_partition_scheme                        *500.1 GB   disk1
   1:                        EFI                         209.7 MB   disk1s1
   2:                  Apple_HFS Snow                    200.0 GB   disk1s2
   3:                  Apple_HFS Home                    99.9 GB    disk1s3
   4:                  Apple_HFS Leo                     40.0 GB    disk1s4
   5:                  Apple_HFS SnowLab                 40.0 GB    disk1s5
   6:                  Apple_HFS Mac OS X Install DVD    10.0 GB    disk1s6
The above is my internal HDD layout atm; disk0 is already "loaded" with boot0hfs on mbr and the booter is installed on disk0s4. When i run the installer against that disk, everything is updated except for boot0hfs.
I see on the installer log that the mbr is checked for the presence of stage 0...
Code: [Select]
Nov 30 01:19:53 AziLandz installd[454]: ./postinstall: ===============================================
Nov 30 01:19:53 AziLandz installd[454]: ./postinstall: Entering CheckDiskMicrocode:
Nov 30 01:19:53 AziLandz installd[454]: ./postinstall: ****************************
Nov 30 01:19:53 AziLandz installd[454]: ./postinstall: DEBUG: passed argument for targetDisk = /dev/disk0
Nov 30 01:19:53 AziLandz installd[454]: ./postinstall: DEBUG: passed argument for diskSigCheck = 1
Nov 30 01:19:53 AziLandz installd[454]: ./postinstall: 0b807c
Nov 30 01:19:53 AziLandz installd[454]: ./postinstall: Found existing Chameleon stage 0 loader - Boot0hfs
my question is, why isn't stage 0 updated in this case?... asking before shooting ;D
If you need i can post or send you the full log, but i can tell you that the rest seems pretty fine.

See you later...
 System & Patches: http://goo.gl/i961
 Chameleon:
- trunk builds: http://goo.gl/9G1Hq
- pref pane: http://goo.gl/OL2UT

Blackosx

  • Forum Moderator
  • Posts: 1150
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #151 on: November 30, 2010, 11:04:32 PM »
Hi Azimutz

sorry for not giving much help on this
No problems there mate - I've seen you around keeping very active with other things and you are always helping others users - so all credit to you. But thanks for stopping by and lending your expert eye :)

a bootloader installer is not a priority to me
I know what you mean - sometimes I question myself for doing this but I guess I'm just a bit bored these days and wanted to get involved in something a bit different and this seemed the perfect opportunity to learn some shell scripting.

Blackosx, about the hidden (or not) boot file, i already voted on the IM topic for a visible boot file, simply because it's easier for everyone, from devs (while testing) to noobs (while ignoring the file is hidden).
I always have it visible as exactly as you say, it's easy to swap, change, see etc. and doesn't cause my any issues. But in response to the InsanelyMac posts I have added the option in the installer for the user to choose which they prefer. Hence the previous post about SetFile.

I also think no permissions should be set on the file; leaving that for later since i still didn't had time to check sources, but i believe that's happening since i'm getting a Unix Executable (dark icon) on some tests installing to disk images..
Thanks for the note - I haven't looked at permissions yet.

About your last question, SetFile is included on the latest official pkg, under EnhancedHFS.pkg(Standart.pkg)/scripts/tools (checked with Pacifist, under Resorces tab); on the trunk, check /package/buildpkg, lines 60, 68 & 76 for when it's added there. So, i guess you can include it on the pkg; but, there's an alternative that's already in the system without XCode, the "chflags <hidden/nohidden>" command... that's what i use all the time for the purpose.
Thank you for pointing out that SetFile was included in the original pkg, I was looking at the files in the trunk and didn't see it the inclusion in buildpkg.  I will proceed and use it in my branch :)

As for chflags, yes I am aware of that command and have used it before myself but after doing a quick bit of research earlier today and found a post saying the difference between SetFile and chflags is that SetFile can mark files as invisible on non-HFS volumes. I haven't looked any more in to that to confirm but I thought if Chameleon can be installed on FAT32 partitions then chflags wouldn't work there? - I need to do some testing etc.

disk0 is already "loaded" with boot0hfs on mbr and the booter is installed on disk0s4. When i run the installer against that disk, everything is updated except for boot0hfs.
../snip/..
my question is, why isn't stage 0 updated in this case?... asking before shooting ;D
Good question - and the basic answer for now is that's just the way I've set it to work.
I haven't thought about the code for boot0 or boot0hfs changing anytime soon so I went down the route that if it doesn't need changing then why bother.. But now you've brought it up then maybe it wasn't such a good idea? lol..    it's easy enough to change.

If you need i can post or send you the full log, but i can tell you that the rest seems pretty fine.
No need for that - I trust your judgement  ;D

Thanks again for your feedback.
10.10.5 / 10.11 GM1 | Asus Maximum IV Gene-Z | i7-2600 3.40GHz | 4GB | Radeon 5770 1GB

Azimutz

  • VoodooLabs
  • Posts: 420
  • Paranoid Android
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #152 on: December 01, 2010, 08:00:26 AM »
Quote
But thanks for stopping by and lending your expert eye :)
:o expert, moi?
Quote
As for chflags, yes I am aware of that command and have used it before   myself but after doing a quick bit of research earlier today and found a   post saying the difference between SetFile and chflags is that SetFile   can mark files as invisible on non-HFS volumes. I haven't looked any   more in to that to confirm but I thought if Chameleon can be installed   on FAT32 partitions then chflags wouldn't work there? - I need to do   some testing etc.
... see what i mean :P i was unaware of that. I really didn't checked it out; i figure there will be some diff...

Quote
I know what you mean - sometimes I question myself for doing this but I   guess I'm just a bit bored these days and wanted to get involved in   something a bit different and this seemed the perfect opportunity to   learn some shell scripting.
yeah, it's a nice project, no doubt. And i have nothing against installers, just to make it clear :)
Learned a lot messing with them!

Quote
Good question - and the basic answer for now is that's just the way I've set it to work.
I haven't thought about the code for boot0 or boot0hfs changing anytime soon so I went down the route that if it doesn't need changing then why bother.. But now you've brought it up then maybe it wasn't such a good idea? lol.. it's easy enough to change.
aah, that explains it ;D
I think it's safer (and simpler) to always write it; people may come from RC4, or other Chameleon based booter, etc etc...
give it a thought.

I'll be back later with some more stuff... this was the most urgent...
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 08:10:08 AM by Azimutz »
 System & Patches: http://goo.gl/i961
 Chameleon:
- trunk builds: http://goo.gl/9G1Hq
- pref pane: http://goo.gl/OL2UT

Blackosx

  • Forum Moderator
  • Posts: 1150
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #153 on: December 01, 2010, 08:49:56 AM »
Thanks for coming back - and don't be modest - I use expert in the sense that you do have a good knowledge and have given some good quality advice in these and other forums. I remember reading some of your posts when I first started out!

Anyhow, back to the installer - Please do no use it, or only use in a dedicated test environment.
There have been two reports of data loss at InsanelyMac from using versions v2.1b, 2.1.1b and 2.1.2b so I have therefore pulled it. I am not happy hearing this and don't want to hear any more reports for data loss. I need to look at the scripts and try to work out what's going on, but until it can be figured out - I need to let everybody know.
10.10.5 / 10.11 GM1 | Asus Maximum IV Gene-Z | i7-2600 3.40GHz | 4GB | Radeon 5770 1GB

Azimutz

  • VoodooLabs
  • Posts: 420
  • Paranoid Android
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #154 on: December 03, 2010, 09:07:16 AM »
yeah... back to the installer ;)
That SetFile stuff checks out; chflags doesn't work on FAT, indeed.
About the data losses, i find them very strange.. need to test... that's "no problemo" to me, just need up to date backups. Did you made any changes to the stage 0 writing stuff?... need to check the code but, time doesn't help :(
 System & Patches: http://goo.gl/i961
 Chameleon:
- trunk builds: http://goo.gl/9G1Hq
- pref pane: http://goo.gl/OL2UT

Blackosx

  • Forum Moderator
  • Posts: 1150
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #155 on: December 03, 2010, 09:17:39 PM »
I'm going to spend a few hours looking at the scripts this weekend - I've just made the change for writing stage 0 even if it already exists, but I want to re-write / re-organise some of the code... time will tell is they still work.
10.10.5 / 10.11 GM1 | Asus Maximum IV Gene-Z | i7-2600 3.40GHz | 4GB | Radeon 5770 1GB

Blackosx

  • Forum Moderator
  • Posts: 1150
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #156 on: December 07, 2010, 06:35:20 PM »
After some consideration, I will not continue any further with the package installer in my branch even though for me it actually worked well. I enjoyed the learning experience of understanding the original Chameleon installer scripts; would I be right in thanking kalyway and mackerintel for those?

Some of the reasons for ceasing are:

• My scripting wasn't perfect and it proved dangerous to a couple of users.
• I don't want the guilt of users losing their data with it.
• Users don't actually learn anything by using it.
• I could try creating a script for installing to RAID setups but they already exist (for instance: digitaldreamer's guide at InsanelyMac).
• My time will be better spent on other things.

I will update my branch, when possible, with any local changes I have recently made and leave it there for anyone to look at in the future, if desired. Best of luck to iFabio, scrax and anyone else with future development here if they choose to continue.

EDIT: Done - see commit 258
« Last Edit: December 08, 2010, 08:52:14 AM by Blackosx »
10.10.5 / 10.11 GM1 | Asus Maximum IV Gene-Z | i7-2600 3.40GHz | 4GB | Radeon 5770 1GB

Azimutz

  • VoodooLabs
  • Posts: 420
  • Paranoid Android
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #157 on: December 08, 2010, 10:04:38 AM »
Now that i was prepared to loose some data? :o ai ai ai :)
All that i can do is offer to test. On the tests i did so far i also had no such problems, not even a sign of them.
 System & Patches: http://goo.gl/i961
 Chameleon:
- trunk builds: http://goo.gl/9G1Hq
- pref pane: http://goo.gl/OL2UT

Blackosx

  • Forum Moderator
  • Posts: 1150
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #158 on: December 08, 2010, 11:26:28 AM »
Lol..   :)
If you do want to test further then that would be appreciated at least for my conscience! But out of interest It always worked for me and I couldn't reproduce the reported problems. You can find the latest built package (for testing purposes only) in the 'build' folder in my branch.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2010, 11:33:32 AM by Blackosx »
10.10.5 / 10.11 GM1 | Asus Maximum IV Gene-Z | i7-2600 3.40GHz | 4GB | Radeon 5770 1GB

Azimutz

  • VoodooLabs
  • Posts: 420
  • Paranoid Android
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #159 on: December 08, 2010, 12:24:10 PM »
yep... just updated the working folder and gave it a look. Can't build the installer... i hate Package Maker! :P i'm probably being noob at something... Will try the installer later; i did fired it up but something came up and i'm already tired so...
I'll keep in touch :)
 System & Patches: http://goo.gl/i961
 Chameleon:
- trunk builds: http://goo.gl/9G1Hq
- pref pane: http://goo.gl/OL2UT

Blackosx

  • Forum Moderator
  • Posts: 1150
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #160 on: December 08, 2010, 03:39:00 PM »
Can't build the installer... i hate Package Maker! :P
Fixed - commit 259.
Yes, PackageMaker does seem a bit restrictive, but from doing this I've got used to working with it.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2010, 03:42:10 PM by Blackosx »
10.10.5 / 10.11 GM1 | Asus Maximum IV Gene-Z | i7-2600 3.40GHz | 4GB | Radeon 5770 1GB

Azimutz

  • VoodooLabs
  • Posts: 420
  • Paranoid Android
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #161 on: December 10, 2010, 07:30:04 AM »
Thanks for the fix.. does build now, but still no time to test it :(
My biggest problem with Package Maker is that i don't find it intuitive enough.. it is with some things, but then it's not with others and i don't play with it in a long time.
 System & Patches: http://goo.gl/i961
 Chameleon:
- trunk builds: http://goo.gl/9G1Hq
- pref pane: http://goo.gl/OL2UT

Blackosx

  • Forum Moderator
  • Posts: 1150
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #162 on: December 10, 2010, 02:54:46 PM »
There's no rush here Azi - As far as I'm concerned the project has been shelved and it's collecting dust for now.
10.10.5 / 10.11 GM1 | Asus Maximum IV Gene-Z | i7-2600 3.40GHz | 4GB | Radeon 5770 1GB

Azimutz

  • VoodooLabs
  • Posts: 420
  • Paranoid Android
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #163 on: December 11, 2010, 10:18:39 AM »
I know... but, i was enjoying your effort and this "data loss" problem got me curious.
No hurry, yeah :)
 System & Patches: http://goo.gl/i961
 Chameleon:
- trunk builds: http://goo.gl/9G1Hq
- pref pane: http://goo.gl/OL2UT

ErmaC

  • Resident
  • Posts: 134
Re: Revisit Chameleon's package builder
« Reply #164 on: December 27, 2010, 12:29:24 PM »
Hi people!

Merry Christmas and happy new year!

About the "installer" I try a different way the dmg...
for now the script is a little mes* but works (the creation of needed stuff)



I wait for some feedback from IM

And soon I commit the new stuff on the SVN.

Fabio
P6T Deluxe v1 i7 940 Quadro Fx 5600
P6T SE i7 920 GeForce GT 240