SCM Basics

[Jason W]

There should not be a library existing only in a collection like an scm, that is needed by other apps.  Rather, the opposite should normally occur, that common libs are found in an extension colleciton. 

Common libs should be available in common tcz extensions, and no small extension should depend on an scm self contained package.

[Lee]

I may have been overly specific in my original "provides" search.  The library in question was libgmp.so and I was searching for the specific version mentioned when UBC Logo failed - libgmp.so.3.4.1 - which indeed is only "provided" by lilypond.tcz. 

In checking today (in the 4.x repo - the original search may have been in the 3.x repo) I checked for -any- "libgmp.so" and found several providers: gmp.tcz, lilypond.tcz and openssl-1.0.0.tcz.  I don't know what versions are provided in gmp.tcz and openssl-1.0.0.tcz.

 - I suppose this sub-topic should be split out to different thread as it is not really SCM-specific.

[Jason W]

On looking at the list files, lilypond-2.12.2.tcz and openssl-1.0.0.tcz do not have libgmp.so* in a standard library path, so they do not provide libgmp.so* in a way that can be used by other extensions as a shared lib.

Yeah, this thread has ventured off a bit from the original topic a while back, but by now may be difficult to split the separate parts out.

[cast-fish]

Hello

what is the advantage of having the ability to "mount" and "unmount" an scm application? (.....over regular apps that are installed with the .tcz approach?)

I know that there are 4 different ways to deal with .tcz files.  (Download only. On demand etc)...

How are the "scm" applications able to be handled?...is it just one approach of installing the .scm application?

how do you "unmount" and why would you need this?

i heard it's helpful to have "self contained" .scm files because when a TCL system
gets any kind of conflicts they can be easily sorted out?

thanks

V.

[Guy]

what is the advantage of having the ability to "mount" and "unmount" an scm application?

When you unmount the app, you free up RAM.

[cast-fish]

Ahh right

Having mentioned this "freeing ram" thing earlier , it was not sighted as
the main reason for .scm apps.

maybe there was a missunderstanding on my part.

but thanks for the quik reply.

V.

[SunBurnt]

Hi Jason W; The scm package sounds like what I was suggesting quite awhile back.

Do they use masses of links to make them work, or are they used directly through the mount point?

[Jason W]

Scm uses few symlinks, just what is inside the bin/ directory in the mountpoint, and the .desktop files and icon.

[SunBurnt]

Excellent!!! It does sound like what I call "no-union" Squash apps. Or "SqApps".

Do you have a build script or GUI that automates this?

[Jason W]

I use build scripts for everything that is not converted directory from tcz, which converting from tcz involves a lot of potential for error that does not exist when building outright.  Though some even complicated examples work well with the tcz to scm approach, like VLC.  That is accomplished with some methods taken from portablelinuxapps.org.

The build scripts are in the src directory of the scm area.  I use a general script called "buildscm" that calls on include files, which are easily made for each source and it's dependencies. 

The build process is automated once created, like with tcz. 

[cast-fish]

Hello

do you think that "many more" apps from the app store will end up in the SCM browser?

Scm browser seems so convenient for a tinycore user.

Scm is simple, clean and with it's advantages. For me particularly, scm browser totally simplifies some understanding
of how to use tinycore to my advantage.

i expect it's down
to many factors right?...not least of which is the complexity of shifting tcz's into .scm files (maybe it's not possible for certain apps?)

thanks

V.

[SunBurnt]

I think all new scm builds are a good way to go, following Jason W`s thought that using tcz files can be hazardous.

A relatively complete list of of the best scm apps. in each category should be built to supplement the list of tcz apps.
Ideally over time scm would become Tiny Core`s main and maybe only app. package format, why have many?

The advantages of scm files are well known and they`re obviously superior to any other package type I`m aware of.
Standard packages; .tar.gz, .deb, .rpm, etc., are legacy old school and are relics of a bygone era really.
Puppy Linux`s .sfs files come close to a good package, but use the union file system that`s complex and unneeded.
If it weren`t for the "many Linuxes, many builds" problem, scm type files could work with any Linux distro. ( portable ).

[cast-fish]

yes....if .scm apps can be built right away...why bother with .tcz builds of any new apps?

as for existing .tcz apps getting converted to .scm apps....it would be fantastic to see it happen for
every single .tcz app

i know of newcomers to tinycore who instantly can work with SCM browser no worries....its intuitive "one file" approach is exactly what people want

V.

[gerald_clark]

You assume you speak for everybody.
Scm is not the be-all end-all you claim.

[cast-fish]

sorry you feel that way

V