WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: tinycore_v2.8rc1  (Read 8187 times)

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
tinycore_v2.8rc1
« on: January 04, 2010, 01:19:42 PM »
The First Release Candidate of v2.8 (tinycore_2.8rc1.iso), is now posted and ready for testing.
http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/tinycorelinux/2.x/release_candidates

tinycore_2.8rc1.iso
tinycore_2.8rc1.iso.md5.txt

Change log for Tiny Core v2.8rc1

* Updated tce-load to allow miltiple loading, e.g., tce-load -i *.tcz
* Updated tce-load to drop ".tcz" requirement.
* Updated appsaudit to allow  selective removal of items from "marked for deletion"
* Updated appsaudit to allow operation in tce directory as well as tce/optional directory, use File option.
* Updated appsaudit menu for smoother operation.
* Updated cd_dvd_symlinks.sh for better multiple cd and dvd devices.
* Cleanup of tce-setup & tce-update of l,m,lm, and ml code.
* Updated tce-fetch.sh to cleanup old dual repository support.
* Updated tce-update to prompt before beginning easy mode batch update operation.
* After much Team testing and input, the upx'ed kernel returns, prior kernel is in distribution files.
* Dropped symlinker by using builtin cp construct.
* Dropped GNU ftp from base.

Now at 9.9MB
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 01:52:12 PM by roberts »
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline Xianwen Chen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2010, 01:34:55 PM »
Hi! Happy new year! I'm always excited to see a new RC!

At this point, I have two questions. First, when are we moving to next kernel version? Second, how much space is saved by removing ftp?

Thanks for your great work!

Offline bigpcman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2010, 01:38:48 PM »
The First Release Candidate of v2.8 (tinycore_2.8rc1.iso), is now posted and ready for testing.
http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/tinycorelinux/2.x/release_candidates

tinycore_2.8rc1.iso
tinycore_2.8rc1.iso.md5.txt

Change log for Tiny Core v2.8rc1

* Updated tce-load to allow miltiple loading, e.g., tce-load -i *.tcz
* Updated tce-load to drop ".tcz" requirement.
* Updated appsaudit to allow  selective removal of items "marked for deletion"
* Updated appsaudit to allow operation in tce directory as well as tce/optional directory, use File option.
* Updated appsaudit menu for smoother operation.
* Updated cd_dvd_symlinks.sh for better multiple cd and dvd devices.
* Cleanup of tce-setup & tce-update of l,m,lm, and ml code.
* Updated tce-fetch.sh to cleanup old dual repository support.
* Updated tce-update to prompt before beginning easy mode batch update operation.
* After much Team testing and input, the upx'ed kernel returns, prior kernel is in distribution files.
* Dropped symlinker by using builtin cp construct.
* Dropped GNU ftp from base.

Now at 9.9MB


Robert, just out of curiosity, what did you discover was wrong with the previous attempt to use the upx'ed kernel ?
big pc man

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2010, 01:44:52 PM »
If items are not required by base infrastructure they become candidates for removal, as per our philosphy of a tiny core. ftp serves no purpose in core and is therfore better handled as an extension,

Since a new kernel means new modules means new repository, means many many extensions will have to be updated, moving to a newer kernel is not something to be done often.

The Team is evaluating a new kernel with a possible target of March/April. It is still tenative at this time.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 01:54:42 PM by roberts »
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2010, 01:49:48 PM »
Code: [Select]
Robert, just out of curiosity, what did you discover was wrong with the previous attempt to use the upx'ed kernel ?
At the time, I did not have much in the way of equipment and virtual machines to test it, so I dropped it.
Since then the entire Team has been testing on various devices, isolinux, cdroms, virtual machines and could not get a failure. So perhaps the issue is directly related to specific hardware or BIOS. Therefore, as a Team decision, we decided to use the smaller kernel while offering the un-upxed version in the distrubtion file area.
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline u54749

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2010, 03:11:09 PM »
Can you explain why the symlinker line in tce-load is

sudo cp -as /tmp/tcloop/"$APPNAME"/. /
instead of
sudo cp -as /tmp/tcloop/"$APPNAME"/* /

the first gives as result
/usr/local/bin/dillo -> /tmp/tcloop/dillo2/./usr/local/bin/dillo
you have a spurious "/./"

the second line gives a clean link
/usr/local/bin/dillo -> /tmp/tcloop//dillo2/usr/local/bin/dillo

except for this both lines seem to work the same....
Only a detail - more interested in the reason behind this than in the "fix"
I suppose there is a side effect I don't know

Offline ^thehatsrule^

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1726
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2010, 03:40:01 PM »
Could probably use
Code: [Select]
sudo cp -as /tmp/tcloop/"$APPNAME"

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2010, 07:57:44 PM »
Thanks, for the feedback. Will clean it up.
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline bmarkus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7035
    • My Community Forum
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2010, 12:29:57 AM »

* After much Team testing and input, the upx'ed kernel returns, prior kernel is in distribution files.


I was one of the victims in tha last cycle of of the upx'ed kernel on my ACER ASPIRE 5720Z notebook experiencing booting problems and random feezes. Now booting works fine after 8-10 tries, but still I see random freezes frequently when using 2.8rc1

As I remember I was not the only one. For sure we need the standard kernel and there will be otheres, not reporting it just simply throw away TC/MC after testing.

I kindly ask not to use upx'ed kernel. Gain is musch less than trouble caused.
Béla
Ham Radio callsign: HA5DI

"Amateur Radio: The First Technology-Based Social Network."

Offline bmarkus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7035
    • My Community Forum
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2010, 02:38:30 AM »

* Dropped GNU ftp from base.


It is true, that ftp is not really needed in the base, however there are some basic tools what is expected to be in all LINUX distribution, like telnet, ping, ... In TC most of them are provided by busybox and I don't think ftp with its 62k is harming too much.

What is about dropbearmulti? It is double sized compared to ftp and for sure SSH is not used by most of the users.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 02:40:20 AM by bmarkus »
Béla
Ham Radio callsign: HA5DI

"Amateur Radio: The First Technology-Based Social Network."

Offline bigpcman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2010, 05:33:07 AM »

* Dropped GNU ftp from base.


It is true, that ftp is not really needed in the base, however there are some basic tools what is expected to be in all LINUX distribution, like telnet, ping, ... In TC most of them are provided by busybox and I don't think ftp with its 62k is harming too much.

What is about dropbearmulti? It is double sized compared to ftp and for sure SSH is not used by most of the users.
I strongly disagree regarding dropbear. I use it all the time for remote access to my MC based web server. I agree with removing ftp. I use proftp when I need it but now mostly use vpn access to the local net and then use samba for file sharing.

[^thehatsrule^: fixed post]
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 11:44:35 AM by ^thehatsrule^ »
big pc man

Offline bmarkus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7035
    • My Community Forum
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2010, 05:39:00 AM »
I did not say dropbear is useless neither that nobody is using. Just asked what is about to move it out to extension, that's all. It would make also easier to use alternative ssh clients or servers.
Béla
Ham Radio callsign: HA5DI

"Amateur Radio: The First Technology-Based Social Network."

Offline bigpcman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2010, 05:40:12 AM »
I did not say dropbear is useless neither that nobody is using. Just asked what is about to move it out to extension, that's all. It would make also easier to use alternative ssh clients or servers.

OK, I see your point.
big pc man

Offline alu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2010, 06:02:59 AM »
i also see the point regarding ftp; it is not essential to have it in the base; i have found that dropbear behave better than the current openssh.tcz extension which seems to have critical issues; openssh lets you login as root (i find this feature very risky), does not seem to handel private/public keys correctly (you can still connect with password), and does not seem to catch the modifications you enter in your sshd_config file; dropbear behave as expected, and you can run sshfs and sftp with some tricks

Offline Machete

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc1
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2010, 06:43:04 AM »
Code: [Select]
Robert, just out of curiosity, what did you discover was wrong with the previous attempt to use the upx'ed kernel ?
At the time, I did not have much in the way of equipment and virtual machines to test it, so I dropped it.
Since then the entire Team has been testing on various devices, isolinux, cdroms, virtual machines and could not get a failure. So perhaps the issue is directly related to specific hardware or BIOS. Therefore, as a Team decision, we decided to use the smaller kernel while offering the un-upxed version in the distrubtion file area.

Have they tried it in a plain VirtualBox "Live" session, just creating a virtual machine with all the defaults, except no hard drive? Every time I've tried it with these UPX'd kernels, just booting off the raw .iso, I get the same message from ACPI: "Unable to load the System Description Tables". Seems like the UPX'd kernels were giving some people running on real systems a headache, too.

If we're going for size and compatibility, I'd say we seem to be better off with a non-UPX'd kernel, rather than a compressed one.