From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Aug 10 04:57:01 2010 Message-ID: <4C6113DE.1080404@online.no> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:54:54 +0200 From: Jo Even Skarstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] trunk-09082010 file structure / content References: <1281383933.4401.87.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <1281387993.4401.164.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <1281389959.4401.204.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <1281398029.4401.343.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <1281401486.4401.401.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: joska@online.no Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: On 08/10/2010 06:25 AM, Paul Wratt wrote: > Whatever the final release, the following line should be enable in MINT.CNF > GEM=ROM > to enable simple extraction and working boot with desktop. Would this > will cause a crash on any systems? Why not boot XaAES directly? There is no reason why this shouldn't work. And my guess is that it works better than the ROM AES. > A set of install scripts (or simplified prcoedure/prg) should be > supplied to enable the correct MINT.PRG/XAAES.KM pair where (even if > they require the user to choose which set to install) Why? I think Alan's idea of separate tarballs for each target it a much better idea. > Result: self contained install That is the goal of my installer. > Someone's working easymint.cnf and afromint.cnf (and gtoomint.cnf) in > the package would be useful too. This covers both GEM= & INIT= and I don't think so. These configs are useless without EasyMiNT, AFROS etc, and these distros already contains proper config files. Jo Even