[OSGeoLive] Disk space and gvSig upgrade

[James Klassen]

Right... I think I knew that once upon a time.

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018, 10:29 Angelos Tzotsos <gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The hard limit for the live system is 4.2GB. The reason is not the iso
> size, but the way the live system works: it is based on a FAT file system,
> where maximum file size is 4GB. Everything we add is stored on a virtual
> file system built on a squashfs file (compressed file system used by ubuntu
> for the live system). If we add too much in the customization, the
> squashfs goes over 4GB and cannot be stored in the USB, causing a fatal
> error.
>
> In order to move away from this limit, we would need to stop distributing
> a live system and only produce a VM version.
> Another option would be to distribute a light live version in iso format
> (excluding big projects from it) and a full version (VM only) that could go
> over 4GB in size.
>
> Best,
> Angelos
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) <
> bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:
>
>> Jim,
>>
>> Good points all, and this seems be in line with other list conversations
>> related to setting up video tutorials for OSGeo stack items.
>>
>> bobb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:01 AM, James Klassen <jklassen at sharedgeo.org> wrote:
>>
>> I can't make the meeting, but I have been wondering for awhile if the
>> target should be moved to a 8GB USB stick (or DL DVD).
>>
>> I am not sure if this holds World wide, but locally 4GB and 8GB USB
>> sticks are essentially the same price and 8GB sticks are much easier to
>> find.  Again locally, from 4GB to 32GB the bigger price difference is USB2
>> vs USB3 rather than based on the capacity.
>>
>> There is certainly benefit in the discipline gained by being forced to be
>> efficient with software size.  And I know as someone who has been involved
>> in making Live USBs for several conferences that even slight increases in
>> cost with limited budgets means less copies can be given out.  But given at
>> least my local observations, I no longer see the gain in limiting
>> ourselves to 4GB and I worry if we are forced to exclude projects that
>> provide good examples of the rich selection of the FLOSS geospatial
>> ecosystem based on what may well be an outdated limit.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018, 07:23 Angelos Tzotsos <gcpp.kalxas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We have received a pull request from gvSig to upgrade version from 2.2
>>> to 2.4
>>> As can be seen here
>>> https://github.com/OSGeo/OSGeoLive/pull/206#issuecomment-401786071 this
>>> will double the installation size of gvSig.
>>>
>>> Lets discuss this tonight, so we can make a decision.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Angelos
>>>
>>> --
>>> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
>>> OSGeo Charter Member
>>> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> osgeolive mailing list
>>> osgeolive at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeolive
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osgeolive mailing list
>> osgeolive at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeolive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "In the end, everything is a gag."- Charlie Chaplin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
> OSGeo Charter Member
> http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeolive/attachments/20180702/7ba70fdd/attachment.html>