WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: tinycore_v2.8rc3  (Read 14505 times)

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2010, 05:59:52 AM »
Fat filesystems as previously discussed, do not fully support *nix features.
If you insist on using such a file system then setup a virtual disk ( tcvd ) that will support *nix.
It is possible to use a unetbootin vfat pendrive with a tcvd hosting a tce directory.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2010, 11:01:49 AM by roberts »
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline jur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 863
    • cycling photo essays
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2010, 12:21:15 PM »
But but but I DIDN'T choose fat... I just used the usb inbstall function that comes with tc! You insist on lecturing me on fat but effectively YOU chose fat. I didn't see anywhere the procedure gave me any choice. In fact that usb device WAS formatted with ext3 BEFORE I used your procedure.  >:(

So after this, I ignored what's in core, used gparted to reformat the usb device with ext3 and set it up myself and then it worked. So I guess you have some work to do to fix usbinstall in tc.

Offline helander

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2010, 12:37:30 PM »
On he first screen of the USB install tool you select the file system to use. If you used that tool you must have made an active selection, or am I missing something here ?

/Lars

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2010, 12:48:05 PM »
helander, I can't figure it out either as the opening usbinstall screen shows:

===================================================================
Tiny Core pendrive BIOS boot installation/update.

HDD
* Your BIOS must support USB-HDD booting.
* A single FAT partition will be made.

ZIP
* Your pendrive will be formatted into two partitions.
* One small one for USB_ZIP boot compatibility, and used to hold Tiny Core.
* The remaining partition will be used for backup & extensions.

EXT
* Your BIOS must support USB-HDD booting.
* A single EXT2 partition will be made.


Use USB Boot type [H]DD, [Z]ip, [E]xt. (h/z/e):
==================================================================

You do have to make an active selection and selecting e
will automatically format and setup an ext2 pendrive.

@jur, your right. There is still some work to do. But this is a release candidate, as such it is to be considered still 'in progress'. Release Candidates are open public testing.

I have since posted that "I am cutting the FAT" from the usbinstall script.
Thus the usbinstall script will only support ext file systems.
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline jur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 863
    • cycling photo essays
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2010, 02:58:38 PM »
I see. That opening screen's clarity is lacking somewhat... it always puzzled me what the various choices meant... So I would look at the choices, figure by a process of elimination what must be the right one (ZIP drive? Nope. EXT drive? Nope, whatever that is, never heard of an EXT drive. Must be HDD.).

Offline MakodFilu

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2010, 04:03:12 PM »
:facepalm:

Back on topic, I installed 2.8rc3 in a Fujitsu Siemens and it works like a charm.

The idea about using .dep files instead of symlinks is worth considering, IMHO. Downside is TCZ repo would be implied instead of refered directly.

Upside is that it would create and load something like 'bare.dep' as default, and provide room for future dialog at boot time if more than a personal .dep file us there, like 'vm.dep', 'webserver.dep', 'workstation.dep' and so on.

I am suggesting only, in fact I don't like 'bare.dep' because it would be easily confused with 'base'.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2010, 04:10:27 PM by MakodFilu »

Offline bigpcman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #36 on: January 18, 2010, 04:51:51 PM »
I have since posted that "I am cutting the FAT" from the usbinstall script.
Thus the usbinstall script will only support ext file systems.

So to make this perfectly clear unlike in the past the tce directory must now be in a *nix ext2/3 partition. I assume the "boot" directory can still be in a fat or ext2/3 partition. Do I have this right?
big pc man

Offline gerald_clark

  • TinyCore Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4254
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #37 on: January 18, 2010, 05:02:12 PM »
I know Robert wants to get rid of vfat support, but for those of you who had rc2 on a fat fs, and now
have problems because of no symlinks, I have a solution.
Symlinks are not an issue.
tce-setup only looks at the filenames in tce.
Instead of symlinks, you can use touch to create a 0 length file in tce of the same name.

Perhaps Robert could change the symlinks into 0 length files to eliminate this issue.
Perhaps eliminating vfat is a better solution.

Offline bigpcman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #38 on: January 18, 2010, 05:58:16 PM »
I know Robert wants to get rid of vfat support, but for those of you who had rc2 on a fat fs, and now
have problems because of no symlinks, I have a solution.
Symlinks are not an issue.
tce-setup only looks at the filenames in tce.
Instead of symlinks, you can use touch to create a 0 length file in tce of the same name.

Perhaps Robert could change the symlinks into 0 length files to eliminate this issue.
Perhaps eliminating vfat is a better solution.


This does not solve the "tce-load -w -i" or app browser created sym links. eh?
big pc man

Offline roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #39 on: January 18, 2010, 06:13:22 PM »
To state that you know I want to get rid of vfat support then subvert the effort that was a Team decisions and not mine alone is not really helpful.

Users trying to place persistent home and/or persistent opt on vfat are just some of the reasons for our collective decision.

If fact a zero length file was considered and rejected. Why hold back *nix capabilities supporting an acient and easily corruptable Windows file system!


« Last Edit: January 18, 2010, 06:25:17 PM by roberts »
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline gerald_clark

  • TinyCore Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4254
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2010, 07:39:21 PM »
I'm not trying to subvert anything.
I just pointed out a solution for someone who may have tried to update their tc or mc on their vfat filesystem and suddenly found it no longer worked.
I was not advocating that new installations use vfat.
I did not even say that I thought that it was a good Idea to continue using vfat on an existing drive.
In fact I said "Perhaps eliminating vfat is a better solution."

Offline thane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #41 on: January 18, 2010, 10:44:32 PM »
My PC can't boot from USB, but if I use the usb installation tool and select ext2 format, I should be able to just use the tce directory the tool creates on the usb stick, right?

Offline althalus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2010, 02:07:30 AM »
On the topic of the USB install script, I have two thoughts:

1) I perfectly understand and fully support ditching support for FAT. But the simple truth is some people do still want to use FAT, despite all the problems it would cause for TC. Perhaps an acceptable compromise between "Must have FAT support!" and FAT not playing well with linux would be to update the FAT install option to force it to create and use a tcvd?
2) Is usbinstall an appropriate name for this script, even? The ext option installs fine and boots fine from a normal hard drive, after all.

RC3 is looking very good so far! Will be watching this one closely. =)

Offline Guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #43 on: January 19, 2010, 05:03:21 AM »
Quote
My PC can't boot from USB, but if I use the usb installation tool and select ext2 format, I should be able to just use the tce directory the tool creates on the usb stick, right?

Yes

The installation process is very simple.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 05:06:33 AM by Guy »
Many people see what is. Some people see what can be, and make a difference.

Offline bigpcman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
Re: tinycore_v2.8rc3
« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2010, 05:27:40 AM »
To state that you know I want to get rid of vfat support then subvert the effort that was a Team decisions and not mine alone is not really helpful.

Users trying to place persistent home and/or persistent opt on vfat are just some of the reasons for our collective decision.

If fact a zero length file was considered and rejected. Why hold back *nix capabilities supporting an acient and easily corruptable Windows file system!



I agree with "persistent home and/or persistent opt on vfat" problems. However I did like the convenience of being able to have a tce directory on a usb stick that was portable and compatible with my windows systems. However, I have ended up with my /tce directory located in an ext3 partition so it's no big deal to me.

Robert, you and the tc team have done a brilliant job transitioning the extension system to what it is today. I do have what might be a dumb question and observation? It looks to me as a humble observer that /tce/optional has become /tce and the copy to file system flag, copy to file system list, and boot file links could all be reduced to one text file with a list of boot extensions where each entry has a flag to denote copy to file system. It's just a thought.
big pc man