WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: why don't remove .tcz from the dep files since all extensions are now .tcz?  (Read 2412 times)

Offline jls

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
dCore user

Offline robc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
I asked this question too, didn't get a response... http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=4611.msg24183#msg24183
"Never give up! Never surrender!" - Commander Peter Quincy Taggart

"Make it so." - Captain Picard

Offline neonix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
1. There are existing users who use previous versions of TC and they have customised system to use *.tcz or even *.tce
2. It's too much work.
3. I belive that in 3.x version they create new repository without tcz.

Offline bmarkus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7003
    • My Community Forum

2. It's too much work.


What is too much work? If you mean to convert existing .dep files just a simple script can do it in few seconds.
Béla
Ham Radio callsign: HA5DI

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

Offline robc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
Quote
1. There are existing users who use previous versions of TC and they have customised system to use *.tcz or even *.tce
That's what an appbrowser.tcz would/could be used for

Quote
2. It's too much work.
using a shell script with a single sed line in a for loop could convert all .dep files
ie:
Code: [Select]
#!/bin/sh
mkdir olddeps
for f in $( ls /path/to/deps ); do
mv $f olddeps
sed 's!\.tcz!!' olddeps/$f >$f
done
"Never give up! Never surrender!" - Commander Peter Quincy Taggart

"Make it so." - Captain Picard

Offline MakodFilu

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 46
I would tend to agree, but I have two objections:

1) If sometime in the future a new type of extension is developed, that would mean those changes to .dep files should be reversed?

2) AFAIK no single .dep file is above 512 bytes. Not even before recursive dependencies. That means it doesn't matter how much you could shrink it: every time something changes in there, a whole cluster would be written.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2010, 05:11:54 PM by MakodFilu »

Offline bmarkus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7003
    • My Community Forum

2) AFAIK no single .dep file is above 512 bytes. Not even before recursive dependencies. That means it doesn't matter how much you could shrink it: every time something changes in there, a whole cluster would be written.

There are. And there are few above 1K, see rhythmboxtcz.dep or gnome-desktop-base.tcz.dep which are not yet recursive.
Béla
Ham Radio callsign: HA5DI

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

Offline MakodFilu

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 46
You got me there, but I still think compression and not stripping would be the key here, be it placing it inside the .tcz (or another future package format) or getting .dep files gzipped.

Offline robc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
You got me there, but I still think compression and not stripping would be the key here, be it placing it inside the .tcz (or another future package format) or getting .dep files gzipped.
I think placing the dep files within the extension itself is a good idea. This would give a more complete 'package'. But I would say something like that would have to wait for 3.x since it would be too much change to the way extensions are handled.

As for compressing them, I think that is too much cpu usage for little gain.
"Never give up! Never surrender!" - Commander Peter Quincy Taggart

"Make it so." - Captain Picard

Online curaga

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10035
How would one check for the deps before download if they were inside?
The only barriers that can stop you are the ones you create yourself.

Offline MakodFilu

  • WikiUser
  • *
  • Posts: 46
I remember something about Apache (and by extension, other servers) providing transparent usage of gzipped webs.

About dependencies inside the package, that is the way it *seems* to be with .deb and .rpm packages, BUT neither of those is a Squashfs. Besides, that may be the very reason of why .deb packages are composed of one tar.gz for the program itself and *another* smaller one for meta info ( i.e. dependencies).

All that means there will be a future Core package format, later or sooner, which makes the discussion about removing .tcz from .dep's a pointless one.

[^thehatsrule^: removed empty attachment]
« Last Edit: March 29, 2010, 10:17:23 PM by ^thehatsrule^ »