WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: Tiny Core v5.0  (Read 26631 times)

Offline Juanito

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9245
Re: Tiny Core v5.0
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2013, 10:35:12 PM »
My extensions working also with v5.0  are:
abiword-2.8
ace-of-penguins
fluff
gaiksaurus
getflash11
gimp
gnumeric
GNUPaint
gnupg2
KeePassX
PidginInternetMessenger
TCInstall
Terminal
Viewnior
XChatIRC
Xpdf

Did you really test all of these with tc-5.x (for example fluff and gimp will not work with tc-5.x)?

Offline helasz

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Tiny Core v5.0
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2013, 05:13:52 AM »
Hi All,

According to zlib's home page (http://www.zlib.net/) version 1.2.7 has some rare bug, they took away even the source for that version. It seems to be reasonable to update that package.

Offline Juanito

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9245
Re: Tiny Core v5.0
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2013, 08:57:01 AM »
It depends - we'd have to weigh "very rare bug" against what updating zlib might break...

Offline Zendrael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • Zendrael's home of projects
Re: Tiny Core v5.0
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2013, 09:18:27 AM »
Hi!

Core 5.0 (CorePlus) is working in my machine (Vortex86 MX+ SoC) but is much slower than CorePlus 4.7.7.... Loads extensions slower and after retoring mydata.tgz (which has 113kb) takes another long time to start Xvesa!

Besides that, is working ok!

Thanks!

Offline wt

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • my blog
Re: Tiny Core v5.0
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2013, 10:06:00 AM »
I don't see a core64.gz anymore.

It's rootfs.gz + modules64.gz you need

I am starting tinycore in a Qemu VM. Qemu doesn't appear to support launching with multiple initrds, so I had to manually combine the file like I did in my post above. I assumed that since core.gz was there that core64.gz should also be there.

FTR, originally, I thought that the gz files had to be aligned in the constructed initramfs file (thus the dd instead of catting). Turns out that is incorrect. I was able to do the following to create the core64.gz file:
Code: newbielink:javascript:void(0); [nonactive]
cat modules64.gz rootfs.gz > core64.gz
That's simple enough that I don't practically care about having core64.gz. However, I would have expected core64.gz to exist for consistency since core.gz exists for the 32-bit stuff.

Also, why are my code blocks in these forum posts showing up with that annoying "newbielink:javascript:void(0); [nonactive]" before the block? Can I fix that somehow?

Offline Rich

  • TinyCore Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5300
Re: Tiny Core v5.0
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2013, 04:35:59 PM »
Hi wt
Quote
Also, why are my code blocks in these forum posts showing up with that annoying "newbielink:javascript:void(0); [nonactive]" before the block? Can I fix that somehow?
The  "newbielink:javascript:void(0); [nonactive]"  will go away once you have one or two more posts to your credit.

Offline coreplayer2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
Re: Tiny Core v5.0
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2013, 06:25:32 PM »
My extensions working also with v5.0  are:
abiword-2.8
ace-of-penguins
fluff
gaiksaurus
getflash11
gimp
gnumeric
GNUPaint
gnupg2
KeePassX
PidginInternetMessenger
TCInstall
Terminal
Viewnior
XChatIRC
Xpdf

Did you really test all of these with tc-5.x (for example fluff and gimp will not work with tc-5.x)?

And Ace-of-Penguins :(  which cannot open shared object file libpng12.so.0    (seems familiar I think)
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 07:33:30 PM by coreplayer2 »

Offline coreplayer2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
Re: Tiny Core v5.0
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2013, 07:33:46 AM »
Not sure what happened but have found current core.gz (5.0) has issue supporting custom boot code lst=myonboot.lst

whereas
core.gz (rc1)

and current
rootfs.gz,modules.gz (5.0)
and
rootfs.gz,modules64.gz (5.0)

all support the boot option lst=xxxxx.lst


edit:  Perhaps not supporting the boot code lst= is not the best description.  if I rename the onboot.lst to onboot32.lst for example, during boot onboot32.lst will be used despite requesting ' lst=base.lst ' via append to boot config file for the specific boot menu item   
« Last Edit: September 22, 2013, 07:03:56 AM by coreplayer2 »