Comments on: Glick 0.2 released

By: alexl

alexl — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:39:43 +0000

ziso support would need someone to implement zisofs as a fuse filesytem. Maybe that exists already though.

I don’t see the big problem with requiring the linker installed to create glick bundles. Thats not something most people will do anyway.

By: probono

probono — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:16:42 +0000

Wouldn’t it be great if one could make glick bundles without having to recompile the binaries using a new target=?

Well, that’s actually possible. The trick is using a three-character patch instead of “/proc/self/fd/1023″ and a bit binary-patching.

I prepared a (11.2 MB compressed, 30.4 MB uncompressed) glick bundle of gobby, the collaborative editor: http://klik.atekon.de/glick/gobby_0.4.5-1.tar.gz

What is special about it? I didn’t recompile it (using a new target=), but used existing binaries (from debian sid in this case). The glick bundle runs nicely on Fedora 7, Ubuntu Feisty, and Kubuntu Feisty. In order to use it, you need to set up your system for glick (fusermount must be 4755 and /dev/fuse must be 777), and do once (as root): ln -sf /proc/self/fd/1023 /xxx

How could it be further improved? First, by removing the need for the /xxx symlink in the base system (how? ), second, by replacing ext2 with a compressed filesystem such as zisofs, and third, by removing the need for a compiler on the machine that converts existing binaries into glick bundles.

By: probono

probono — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:47:32 +0000

How hard would it be to add a -zisofs switch (to use that filesystem instead of ext2)? Should give much smaller binaries

By: denodas

denodas — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:46:30 +0000

How hard would it be to add a -zisofs switch (to use that filesystem instead of ext2)? Should give much smaller binaries, and zisofs is probably available everywhere.

By: alexl

alexl — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:55:53 +0000

probono:
The binary is mostly precompiled already in glick. Its a single statically linked library that is just combined with the filesystem image with the linker. You do need the linker though.

You can never do it with a simple cat, as there are some things in the ELF header that depends on how large the filesystem is.

However, it is probably possible to write a small application that knows a bit about ELF and can do the required file merging without relying on the linker, but thats a bit of work.

By: probono

probono — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:27:31 +0000

Minor point, please add gcc and fuse-devel as dependencies to the RPM.

By: probono

probono — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:12:16 +0000

Is there a way to have the glick binary part precompiled, so that to create a glick bundle one would only have to do something like (you get the idea):
cat glickheader > my.glick
cat my.ext2 >> my.glick
cat glickfooter >> my.glick
?

This way, a machine wouldn’t need a full compiler toolchain in order to produce a glick bundle.

By: “Glick” continua ad essere sviluppato :) « pollycoke :)

“Glick” continua ad essere sviluppato :) « pollycoke :) — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:43:36 +0000

[...] “Glick” continua ad essere sviluppato :) 24 Agosto 2007 @ 13:43 Posted by felipe in News e altre Sciccherie, Klik, GNOME. trackback Speravo tanto che Alexander non abbandonasse il frutto del suo piccolo hack estivo/vacanziero (cfr “Klik esce dal buio? Notizione!“) …e infatti ecco che ha rilasciato la versione 0.2 di Glick. [...]

By: alexl

alexl — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:30:01 +0000

KillerKiwi: I don’t really know klik recipies.

However, glicks have to be built with a specific prefix (/proc/self/fd/1023), or be relocatable.

By: KillerKiwi

KillerKiwi — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:59:41 +0000

Can glik work with klik recipes?

Or do apps have to be compiled with a known location?

http://klik.atekon.de/wiki/index.php/Recipe_Files