I see…skidoo wrote:bootmenu colors, submenus, etc...
I suspect you would need to retrieve
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://github.com/BitJam/antiX-Gfxboot"
linktext was:"https://github.com/BitJam/antiX-Gfxboot"
====================================
(AFAIK, its use, in terms of building, is undocumented) and edit the"source" files, then build a new
gfxboot.c32 (cpio archive file?)
^--- and THAT resides within the iso-template which you'll first need to unpack...
I don't know, I had never met that either, but I would suppose something in the remaster scripts should be added or changed.As a betatester, it never occurred to me to test changing the hostname.
I don't know whether what you're describing (unchanged line(s) in /etc/hosts) represents a bug.
Shouldn't expect a casual user to delve into iso-template and self-edit the hosts file...
...but, if the desired hostname is changing (no line in the .conf file for this?) the snapshot program could
assist the user (by prompting, and opening the working_dir copy of etc/hosts in a text editor) during the workflow.
I had done plenty remixes with PCLinuxOS, in 2010 and 2011, with a remaster script running in the user session, which I believe was issued from the same origin as the one antiX uses. I have later done plenty remixes with Ubuntu, since 2012, whith a chroot method, using a build tool (Ubuntu Builder). And never did I have to check the / etc/hosts and / etc/hostname to see if they matched after the resulting ISOs were used to install the system on a test machine. In antiX, I figured out because of a strange message in the console when checking manually for updates. (Or other command lines, not sure what now).
So I would suggest"there is a bug in the remaster scripts". After you will have installed this Edu version can you check and say what you think about it?