Tiny Core Linux

Tiny Core Base => TCB News => Release Candidate Testing => Topic started by: roberts on May 16, 2009, 10:08:11 AM

Title: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: roberts on May 16, 2009, 10:08:11 AM
Now ready for testing Tiny Core V2.0 Release Candidate 2.
http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/tinycorelinux/2.x/release/

Combined change log:
rc1:
* New kernel 2.6.29.1
* New glibc 2.9
* New libstdc++ and libgcc
* New ldconfig
* New base Xlibs
* New squashfs module to base for support of squash'ed extensions.
* New cryptohome to use AES.
* New mount and losetup
* New virtual drive support.
* Updated .xsession
* Updated mousetool
* Updated appbrowser
rc2:
* FLWM replaces JWM (see notes below)
* New tc-config & desktop.sh to support for window managers via WM interface programs.
* New cd-dvd-symlinks.sh to create generic cdrom and dvd devices.
* New updated udev rules 75-cd-dvd.rules to automatically create cdrom and dvd device names.
* Updated .xsession to call wbar.sh to support a single point for options.
* Updated wbar.sh to retain HOME focus.
* Updated xsetup.sh mouse menu label change.
* Added /usr/local/sbin, /usr/local/bin to boot time PATH.
* Added tce-wget wrapper for CLI alternate to appbrowser.
* Updated flpicsee, new scaling, zomming, and popup informaton.
* Updated appbrowser Search now searches v2.x repositories.
* Updated cpanel to use generic HOME for tftpd.
* Updated extitc to be smaller via a single nix call.

Files likely in your backup that need update:
.xsession
.desktop

Notes for rc2:

Using flwm as a default, fits with the minimalistic philosophy of Tiny Core. flwm is based on fltk, I have compiled flwm to use shared libaries that are already in Tiny Core. Therefore flwm is significately smaller than jwm. Yet feature-wise flwm has features that would be expected (popup menu, taskbar applicaton tracking, and pager/multiple desktops).


A quick primer on flwm:

FLWM popup menu is a combination of:
   application launcher
   task bar of running and iconized applicataions
   pager with multiple desktops via "New Desktop" menu option

FLWM popup menu is always readily available by:
   right click on empty area of desktop
   right click on any window title bar
   alt-tab

FLWM popup menu handles multiple desktops:
   Menu allows easy switching desktops, just select Desktop X from menu.
   Moving windows to other desktop is easy, switch to Desktop then choose running app from menu.

FLWM does not use a file for menu, but symlinks or scripts in the .wmx directory located in HOME.

I have updated many core programs to support multiple window managers by way of interface programs to create the extensions dynamic menu. See:

In /usr/bin
  flwm_initmenu
  flwm_makemenu
  flwm_restart

Of course those than want to use the original JWM, can download the jwm.tce extension and add the boot code:
desktop=jwm
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: Z.Q. on May 17, 2009, 07:40:49 AM
I installed the new rc2 today. Now I have a flashplayer in full screen mode. Thanks alot.

Here I have some quesitons about the new rc2.

1. It seems that you are trying to process the jwm tce xml menu files. But if a line does not start with a <Program> tag, it will not be processed correctly. e.g., the getFlash10.tce in the 2.x tce repos does not create a visible menu as it did in rc1.

2. Clicking the [Refresh menu] at the popup menu seems damage the x system.  I have to reboot TC to bring back the popup menu  each time after I click the [refresh menu].
(I only added the opera's menu items after a clean installation)

Hope the above information be helpful.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: jls on May 17, 2009, 08:13:50 AM
it seems to me that /home/tc/.wmx/ isn't automatically created.
I've booted with mydata form 1.0 and persistent home.
Also /home/tc/.ashrc seems changed from 1.x, and maybe /home/tc/.fltk
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: roberts on May 17, 2009, 09:57:10 AM
True. using a persistent home, by definition, would not get populated from /etc/skel
See /usr/bin/flwm_initmenu, what you need to update your persistent home is:
Code: [Select]
rsync -a /etc/skel/.wmx   /home/tc/

Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: kerpob on May 18, 2009, 07:07:31 AM
FLWM takes a bit of getting used to, but on my eee, saves space well.

GetFlash10 doesn't seem to work. Normally when I install it, it appears alongside OSS in applications, but for rc2, when installed, the applications have a submenu called "firefox" with the OSS options in it and no way to start/install flash (unless there is a command line way to do it?)
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: Z.Q. on May 18, 2009, 08:14:48 AM
Quote
no way to start/install flash (unless there is a command line way to do it?)

yes, although the menu does not appear there is one command line script.

Code: [Select]
# /usr/local/bin/getflash10.sh
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: kerpob on May 18, 2009, 08:26:07 AM
Quote
no way to start/install flash (unless there is a command line way to do it?)

yes, although the menu does not appear there is one command line script.

Code: [Select]
# /usr/local/bin/getflash10.sh

Yep, that worked, although (for other users) to make it clear, what you do is navigate to the /usr/local/bin directory and then type:

sudo ./getflash10.sh
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: roberts on May 18, 2009, 09:23:09 AM
Good Grief! It is one extension that needed a tweak.
No special instructions are needed.
This is what an RC is all about. Report specifics and they will get fixed.
I have reposted getFlash10.tce. It now correctly creates the menu item.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: Jason W on May 18, 2009, 09:49:55 AM
Firefox, nfs-utils, getflash10.tcz also have menu issues.  I am aware of it and they will be fixed Wednesday when I get back in town, maybe tomorrow if I can squeeze it in.  If any other menu issues are discovered they can be brought up in the extensions TCE News announcement thread or in the TCE Bugs section as they are actually bugs in the extensions themselves rather than in the base TC.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: roberts on May 18, 2009, 10:21:41 AM
re:    getflash10.tcz   I should have mentioned I updated both the .tce and the .tcz.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: jpeters on May 18, 2009, 04:06:37 PM
I think we can drop the skype_installscript for tc2, until someone comes up with a missing dep or other fix to make the static binary work.   
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: mcewanw on May 18, 2009, 05:03:51 PM
FLWM takes a bit of getting used to

Yes, I was perplexed for a half a minute or so, but no more than that. I had doubts about changing the default WM from JWM but, wow, as far as my early impressions go I must say I really like FLWM (and I've only been using it for half an hour now). Brave decision in a way, since FLWM doesn't provide a permanently on desktop "taskbar" which most have now become used to. However, the alternative "taskbar-like" functionality on right click saves so much screen real-estate with really no extra effort; I think its great! I particularly like the way one can adjust window sizes (wide and long etc) so easily.

I also rather like the left hand side menu bar (rather than at the top as is more conventional) but wonder if that position is in fact movable for those who would prefer it along the top? [EDIT: I checked the FLWM website and the answer to that seems to be no. However, I find myself preferring these side bars to a top bar anyway]
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: mcewanw on May 18, 2009, 06:35:16 PM
Firefox, nfs-utils, getflash10.tcz also have menu issues.  I am aware of it and they will be fixed Wednesday when I get back in town

gnumeric also has menu issues. Right clicking and selecting Applications -> gnumeric wrongly points to: "Start_basic_firewall"

One thing I do miss with FLWM is the taskbar clock.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: jpeters on May 18, 2009, 11:01:02 PM

gnumeric also has menu issues. Right clicking and selecting Applications -> gnumeric wrongly points to: "Start_basic_firewall"


That's because the menus were built for .jwm   I guess somebody changed it to the wrong app ..not me  :)

Edit: I just booted up without jwm, and the menu works fine. 

tc@box:/usr/local/tce.flwm$ vi gnumeric
Code: [Select]
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/gnumeric
~     
                     



Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: junan on May 18, 2009, 11:31:31 PM
is it possible to make a new tce for repair the flwm menu.
for example for OSS.tce or tcz we can make OSS-flwm-menu.tce or tcz.
It's for older application only, for new tce or tcz the menu must be already fixed for flwm.
If repackage the tce or tcz , it means i must re-download all tce or tcz that have menu at tcl ...
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: mcewanw on May 19, 2009, 12:36:13 AM
tc@box:/usr/local/tce.flwm$ vi gnumeric
Code: [Select]
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/gnumeric
~     
                     

Hmmm... I have exactly that on my system too (clean booting tc2.0rc2 without a mydata.tgz).

But... when I right click on the FLWM bar and mouse to Applications -> gnumeric
for some reason the gnumeric entry still points to /home/tc/.wmx/Applications/Start_basic_firewall

Weird! How can such an entry be possible (I don't really understand how FLWM creates the menu, but I'd have imagined the tce.flwm folder scripts would have determined everything, but clearly not. Perhaps I did something inside gnumeric.tce, but I can't remember doing so. I'll download a fresh copy and test that.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: mcewanw on May 19, 2009, 12:42:15 AM
Actually, I've just noticed that pppsetup FLWM menu doesn't work (it should point to ppp-connect, ppp-disconnect, and ppp-configure, but doesn't).

Alas, I'm charged with maintaining that because I modified the modem options in Jason W's original version, but I didn't change the way the menu worked in there (and wouldn't have known how to!)

Oh well, I guess it is a minor glitch that needs sorting out somewhere... ?
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: mcewanw on May 19, 2009, 12:52:48 AM
So what is the difference in the tce/tcz build process to make sure menus work okay using FLWM (and JWM)?
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: jpeters on May 19, 2009, 01:23:48 AM
tc@box:/usr/local/tce.flwm$ vi gnumeric
Code: [Select]
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/gnumeric
~     
                     

Hmmm... I have exactly that on my system too (clean booting tc2.0rc2 without a mydata.tgz).

But... when I right click on the FLWM bar and mouse to Applications -> gnumeric
for some reason the gnumeric entry still points to /home/tc/.wmx/Applications/Start_basic_firewall

Weird! How can such an entry be possible (I don't really understand how FLWM creates the menu, but I'd have imagined the tce.flwm folder scripts would have determined everything, but clearly not. Perhaps I did something inside gnumeric.tce, but I can't remember doing so. I'll download a fresh copy and test that.

That is weird. $HOME/.wmx/Applications should be a link to /usr/local/tce.flwm. 
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: mcewanw on May 19, 2009, 01:57:10 AM
That is weird. $HOME/.wmx/Applications should be a link to /usr/local/tce.flwm. 

It is.

However, I still get the right click Applications -> gnumeric pointing via the path I previously indicated to Start_basic_firewall
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2 - possible reasons for errors in flwm Applications menu
Post by: mcewanw on May 19, 2009, 02:45:30 AM
I opened up my two problem tce's: 1. gnumeric and 2. pppsetup

1. cat usr/local/tce.menu/gnumeric
contains:

Code: [Select]
<JWM>
<Program label="gnumeric">/usr/local/bin/gnumeric</Program>
<JWM>

Clearly, the last <JWM> should be </JWM>
Does the repo gnumeric have the same error (or is it something I have added since downloading the tce..?... I can't remember.

2. cat usr/local/tce.menu/pppsetup
contains

Code: [Select]
<JWM>
<Menu label="pppsetup">
  <Program label="ppp-connect">sudo /usr/local/sbin/ppp-go</Program>
  <Program label="ppp-disconnect">sudo /usr/local/bin/ppp-off</Program>
  <Program label="ppp-configure">sudo aterm -e /usr/local/bin/pppsetup</Program>
</Menu>
</JWM>

I think the problem in this case might be the two spaces before each line starting: <Program label=

[I'm just assuming the new tc2.0rc2 contains some parsing routine that assumes no spaces on these tce.menu lines].
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: Jason W on May 19, 2009, 06:49:23 AM
Quote
Alas, I'm charged with maintaining that because I modified the modem options in Jason W's original version, but I didn't change the way the menu worked in there (and wouldn't have known how to!)

mcewanw - maintain or not maintain pppsetup as you wish, there is no forced obligation.  I don't use pppsetup and cannot maintain it, so figured you may like to since you were updating it and apparently use it.  Anyone can submit updates to the package, I was passing it along as I don't use ppp at all.

Also, lets move the discussion of extensions' menu issues to the particular extensions thread in TCE News or open a thread in TCE Bugs.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: mcewanw on May 19, 2009, 07:31:39 AM
Sorry you thought I was complaining. That wasn't my feeling or intention. At the time I wrote the quoted sentence I couldn't see how to fix the tc2.0rc2 menu-related problem with pppsetup because I knew nothing about menu operation. As you know, I found and fixed the problem a few hours later, so solved and no bug thread required.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2 - possible reasons for errors in flwm Applications menu
Post by: jpeters on May 19, 2009, 08:38:14 AM
I opened up my two problem tce's: 1. gnumeric and 2. pppsetup

1. cat usr/local/tce.menu/gnumeric
contains:

Code: [Select]
<JWM>
<Program label="gnumeric">/usr/local/bin/gnumeric</Program>
<JWM>

Clearly, the last <JWM> should be </JWM>
Does the repo gnumeric have the same error (or is it something I have added since downloading the tce..?... I can't remember.


Thanks for catching that.  No...,but my copy seems to work fine either way....  edit:  resubmitted with correction
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: jls on May 19, 2009, 08:44:50 AM
most of this posts are off topic
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: roberts on May 19, 2009, 10:04:56 AM
The posts here are kind of a mixed bag as some are issues with extensions, but this thread has pointed out a bug in the flwm_makemenu script. While unfortunate that it was not caught in the QA cycles, nevertheless, it has appeared.

Supporting relative position of the Program tag was intended but obviously it is not. I have fixed the bug. So now leading spaces are not an issue.

Since flwm uses directories and files instead of a single text file menu, I am currently only supporting a single <menu> level. You can have multple single menu levels in a single extension item. But even that seems counterintuitive i.e., if we had started with flwm such menu items would likely not be constructed in such a  manner.



Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: roberts on May 19, 2009, 10:38:48 AM
Posted 2.0rc2.1  http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/tinycorelinux/2.x/release/

Fixed leading spaces issue with flwm dynamic menu creation.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: junan on May 20, 2009, 01:57:48 AM
maybe must add refresh wbar too ... i couldn't find it at the menu...
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: roberts on May 20, 2009, 05:21:35 AM
It is easier to just right-click on the bar itself to refresh.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: tclfan on May 20, 2009, 07:49:57 PM
Now ready for testing Tiny Core V2.0 Release Candidate 2.


I am a new TCL user, having discovered TCL a few weeks ago. In search of a best linux system (I do not touch bloated systems with a six foot pole), fast and light, I thought I found the best one - Slitaz. This was before I discovered TCL. It is the new leader IMHO. I tested on variety of hardware, old and newest. Network detection (key feature) is amazing - even PCMCIA network cards! Neither Slitaz nor Zenwalk can do it!
I have been happily using 2.0 RC1 and thought things can only improve. Alas, RC2 new wm (FLWM) is so plain ugly that I cannot use it!  I trust there was a technical reason, some already discussed, but can something be done about these horible esthetics of menus at least? I do not mind the top taskbar gone, but overall look and feel  is plain ugly now, and with unconventional windows handling (X in lower left, etc.). Even in the face of some technical advantage, which I do not yet see, the mere ugliness prevents me from using it. I will be stuck with RC1 for a long time, unless this ugliness is temporary and will be fixed before gold release...

[^thehatsrule^: fixed quote tag]
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: roberts on May 20, 2009, 09:11:33 PM
It is like I said, there will be some that are willing to over look the bugs no matter what.
TC is about choice. With the ease of which to use your favorite JWM, no full screen video and all, is up to you. To ignore this, is to disavow the whole basis of TC's extensibility.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: tclfan on May 21, 2009, 05:56:53 AM
Please understand I have great respect for TCL. I still think it is the best Linux under the sun. Even better than SliTaz (better network support).
I do appreciate fixing bugs, such as fullscreen. I do appreciate more screen. But who in the right mind had to invent such plain ugly interface with complete disregard to human esthetics. Do we not have any other interfaces that do not have those bugs and would not cause my stomach turn upside down when I look at such primitive menu or I look at the ugly windows with such silly positioning of windows handling buttons, such as 'X'. I have seen many WMs but this one is just going to the extreme of primitivism, not leaving any room for sense of esthetics and intuitiveness.
Yes I know - some will say 'you have a choice' If you do not like it, istall another one and re-master!. However, one key beauty (This is esthetics too) of TCL is that a user like me (No longer developer, just a humble user) could stick TCL into any machine and it works! I do not even have to install network drivers, just works with a decent desktop in my face. If I have to 'exercise my choice' and install a different WM to make it acceptable, or install network drivers, I do not have the time to figure this out. I was hoping TCL is meant for large audience rather than just for developers. If it is done just for sake of size game, then it will become another niche distro rather than becoming a widely known and popular best linux so far, exactly what it deserves and was on the right way...
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2 - minimalist clock for FLWM
Post by: mcewanw on May 21, 2009, 06:04:25 AM
I came across this at http://www.koders.com/c/fid0664A5E5EC76AB97A1602CA4BF4EC3F4F7408C57.aspx?s=bits
This would do it for me. I don't need a taskbar, but a clock would be great. I've considered running some clock application, but that would be painful in terms of resources.
I'm not so concerned about the extra "clock alarm" possibity (though if it doesn't add any real bloat...):


Code: [Select]
// "Clock in the title bar" code contributed by Kevin Quick
// <kquick@iphase.com>:

// Add a clock to the active window's title bar using specified
// strftime fmt Note: in keeping with the minimalistic, fast, and
// small philosophy of the flwm, the clock will only be updated
// once/minute so any display of seconds is frivolous.
//#define SHOW_CLOCK "%I:%M %p %Z"

// We also support the concept of a clock alarm.  The alarm is
// triggered by delivering SIGALRM to flwm and cleared by delivering
// SIGCONT to flwm.  When the alarm is active, the foreground and
// background colors of the clock display are determined by the
// following settings.  (The following are unused if SHOW_CLOCK is not
// defined).
#define ALARM_FG_COLOR 0x00ffff
#define ALARM_BG_COLOR 0xff0000
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: jpeters on May 21, 2009, 11:37:00 AM
Please understand I have great respect for TCL. I still think it is the best Linux under the sun. Even better than SliTaz (better network support).
I do appreciate fixing bugs, such as fullscreen. I do appreciate more screen. But who in the right mind had to invent such plain ugly interface with complete disregard to human esthetics. Do we not have any other interfaces that do not have those bugs and would not cause my stomach turn upside down when I look at such primitive menu or I look at the ugly windows with such silly positioning of windows handling buttons, such as 'X'. I have seen many WMs but this one is just going to the extreme of primitivism, not leaving any room for sense of esthetics and intuitiveness.
Yes I know - some will say 'you have a choice' If you do not like it, istall another one and re-master!. However, one key beauty (This is esthetics too) of TCL is that a user like me (No longer developer, just a humble user) could stick TCL into any machine and it works! I do not even have to install network drivers, just works with a decent desktop in my face. If I have to 'exercise my choice' and install a different WM to make it acceptable, or install network drivers, I do not have the time to figure this out. I was hoping TCL is meant for large audience rather than just for developers. If it is done just for sake of size game, then it will become another niche distro rather than becoming a widely known and popular best linux so far, exactly what it deserves and was on the right way...

Personally, I think "esthetic" looks better with added 'a', as in "aesthetic"
You're a developer, but "do not have the time"  to "figure out" how to add "desktop=jwm" to your
boot options; remarkable... 
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: tclfan on May 21, 2009, 01:11:15 PM
Mr. JPeters,

Thank you for your constructive response, and your appreciation of spelling according to rules of ancient Greek, from which that word is derived...
As I mentioned I used to be a developer myself (mainframe systems and mostly Assembler, etc.), but now I am just a HUMBLE USER, and I should be ashamed of this, taking your response as a measure...
Taking from here with no desire whatsoever to get into any polemics, I just want to stress that what decides success of a system is not just whether it is good for developers but more whether is is good for end user, and the better it is to the end user by default, without modification of system configuration. That is how TCL was created in the first place and I greatly appreciate that, rather than making this easy for developers but more difficult for end user.  I am confident that the TCL creator would understand this important strategy. I want TCL success and I am disappointed that from a straight way to such success it suddenly made a bad turn. If the TCL creator happens to read these posts, I hope some steps will be done to improve the interface at some point. I am not the only one who posted disappointment with the new interface and I am not saying it should go back to JWM. All I am saying is that this new FLWM (or whatever it is called) is quite ugly and non-intuitive.  Perhaps another one shoud be considered.
Excuse me my passion to pursue perfection...
Very humble user.
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: Lee on May 21, 2009, 02:20:26 PM
@jpeters:
Quote
Personally, I think "esthetic" looks better with added 'a', as in "aesthetic"

That really deserves an honorable mention in the
"Off Topic / Tiny Core Lounge / Signatures... " thread.

@vhu:
Just who are you calling an ancient Geek?   ;D
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: jpeters on May 21, 2009, 03:44:42 PM
@jpeters:
Quote
Personally, I think "esthetic" looks better with added 'a', as in "aesthetic"

That really deserves an honorable mention in the
"Off Topic / Tiny Core Lounge / Signatures... " thread.
It's completely  'on topic' if you got what I was saying; but I'll take the honorable mention award anyway  :)
(how about "different strokes for different folks".....got it?  )

Quote
I want TCL success and I am disappointed that from a straight way to such success it suddenly made a bad turn. I
..according to who...you?
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: junan on May 21, 2009, 08:02:03 PM
i still love tinycore linux. if u want a cool desktop looking, you can create by yourself. change the window manager. flwm is plain, maybe bitter taste for the one who like show off his desktop wallpaper or other things that not core. i hope no one request for kde or gnome window manager extension inside this forum :)
Title: Re: tinycore_v2.0rc2
Post by: roberts on May 21, 2009, 09:17:52 PM
A wallpaper tool will be added to not just set color but also images.