Why re-mastering instead of mastering ?

[jdenisgiguere]

I read many docs about re-mestering Knoppix. There are always more tools and more detailled documentation and it probably necessary because remastering it is no so easy (for me at least... )

If you want to do a very good custom Knoppix, you need a very good knowledge of Knoppix contents. I would like to know why we don't hear many things about build Knoppix-like from a Debian system. It seems that many tools are already packaged (http://developer.linuxtag.net/knoppix/) and it would be so much easier to really understand what we do this way. I see something on ..., but it seems that the project was never finished.

I would really appreciate if you could give me your opinion on this.

Regards,

[Ghandalfar]

Being one of the authors of ibuild I can tell you the simple reason for this: it is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, easier to remaster then master. Also required amount of expertize and in-depth linux know-how is much bigger then with remastering.

[pureone]

ibuild is a wonderfull program

[Doctor]

blah blah blah incoherant blah blah blah (This is me, not me making fun of you)

...

the knoppix stuff thats hard to understand does the stuff to work off the cd, the only superfulous component is the few lines of code that set the background, and I guess the stuff that copys /etc/skel -> /home/knoppix

It probably wouldn't be that hard to adjust the knoppix initialization to mount your debian install read-only like its knoppix, then you could document what doesn't work and then write your own livecd guide

I see remastering as three steps

1. uncompress

2. futz

3. compress

by not remastering, and mastering in the first place, you skip the uncompress step, but you got to do a lot more futzing