Hi,

I've just submitted a feature request named grml2usb installation structure consideration at http://bts.grml.org/grml/issue874

I'm soliciting your comments are a normal user.

Here is the repost of the content of the feature request.

Currently, grml2usb install to the destination pen drive with the structure like this:

. . . ./live/grml-medium/grml-medium.squashfs ./live/grml-medium/filesystem.module ./boot/release/grmlmedium/linux26 ./boot/release/grmlmedium/initrd.gz ./boot/syslinux/defaults.cfg ./boot/syslinux/grml.png ./boot/syslinux/hd.cfg ./boot/syslinux/isolinux.cfg ./boot/syslinux/grml_medium_default.cfg . . .

I.e., every aspect of boot component has been seamlessly mingled into proper places. This is one way to arrange things, proper things go to their respective proper places (referred as plan-A afterward). However, I hope that the installation structure can take another approach -- all files go into a single directory, say /os/grml-medium-2010.04/ for example (referred as plan-B afterward).

Here is my view of plan-B and plan-A:

- directory structure. plan-B: self contained. plan-A: complicated, distro-specific related files spread arosss multiple directories.

- organization: straightforward vs mixed-up. Use /boot/syslinux/ for example, plan-B contains only files originally from syslinux, nothing else, whereas plan-A contains files from all different flavours.

- management: easy vs hard. Use deleting a flavour for example, plan-B just need to use a single command to remove (/os/grml-medium-2010.04/); plan-A: so complicated to do it manually that it is better to write another script to do it.

- cooperate ability. relaxed vs strict. For example, when I want to try a new grml (beta) release, plan-B allows me to try it out parallel at /os/ grml-medium-newdate/ via for plan-A, the only way is to overwrite the version that I've been accustomed to and left with something risky.

Please consider,

Thanks