[port-ish]{x86_64} 24.04 daily

Moem

@developerbayman said:

i need to be clear daily is considered 1.2 correct or am i building the wrong image this whole time?

Daily is 24.04.1.x
There is a 24.04.1.2 stable and a 24.04.1.2 RC.

developerbayman

y'all wanna mess with this here is the build script im using ...also i think it automatically break UT's immutability i just installed thonny from the terminal like without a hitch ...lol im glad but i actually was not trying for that i think the ubuntu server base file system is the culprit so its not gonna be set read only like UT is supposed to be ...this means many bugs everywhere i need more hands
.....personally i like it ...but i get it some people will be mad at it probably

you gonna need like 30gb hdd space to build it ...its in python

UT port builder script:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1psGjDJQ40fcwWYlxNBS_0QZW_Tpne4ZU/view?usp=sharing

developerbayman

while i want to keep it "normalish" on x86_64 and opi5 or any desktop like experience ....its not my goal despite what i want or my past misgivings on this topic i would better like it if it was immutable as well because if we are not all on the same page it breaks UT's design .....we need to have a discussion about this ....lol i got what i used to want by accident!!!

....although i could probably just set it read only but ill eventually update the script so its a checkbox so its handled in the build process

developerbayman

now i understand clickable more i dont really care about it being writable ...with a few hard buts

developerbayman

this would be a excellent way to test system apps i thinks at least? ...and convergence

developerbayman

im having a NERDGASM!!!!!!!

oldbutndy

@developerbayman Is this running on a PC with a touchscreen, or are you using a mouse ?

developerbayman

@oldbutndy i am using a mouse i do have a touch screen on my opi5 havent tested yet ...also only tested in a VM so far

developerbayman

updated also for some reason im having trouble with the different release channels

arubislander

@developerbayman I would say, it depends.

Since your work is based on the PDK image, which itself is a developments tool and does not have a read-only rootfs, it is expected that you would also end up with a writable rootfs.

If you are planning to support OTA updates just like on other UT devices, then making the roots r/o would be a requirement. But until that moment, there isn't really that much benefit in having it configured that way.

developerbayman

@arubislander honestly there was no plan ...umm i just was bored and wondered and asked and then did and did some and lots more ...now its this and i dont know ....so to compound things im making a installer app actually based off the old installer app and i plan on folding it during the disk image creation process so it will be a bootable usb image with a disk installer

developerbayman

@arubislander if you downloaded the builder script download it again and maybe a few other times in the future as im updating it as i go along
...may work may break but eventually ill leave it on working

developerbayman

@arubislander also i do want the "official" style writeable is cool but i want it to follow UT maybe present the writable version as a fork? more like a standard distro? but not as its clickable compatible ...also just gained new respect for clickable i just yank out the whole "arm64" under body bolt on x86 and im running all the apps ....am i missing something? am impressed