corepkg - a new core package and updates manager

[martin]

(comment removed, but saved offline. can't be bothered venturing into politics.)
I'll use this space to demonstrate instructions instead.

Sample commands tested, working and ready:
* corepkg -f - fetch package database
* corepkg fetch - same as above
* corepkg -u - check if updates are available, but do not download them.
* corepkg -uf - same as above, but download them.
* corepkg update - same as -uf above
* corepkg -df package[.tcz] - similar functionality to (but does not use) "tce-load -w [package]", fetches an extension and all dependencies (recursive) for later installing, storage and transporting. This is considered the "offline downloading" part.
* corepkg -i package[.tcz] - wrapper to "tce-load -wi"
* corepkg install - shortcut for above
* corepkg search keyword - searches entire database for references to [keyword]. This will soon include all files within packages as well.
* Server side compilation only: corepkg -g - Re-freshes the package database pkg.db.

Features in progress:
* Display estimated download size for packages to be updated.
* Keyword search to the include file list.

Related Summary:
My primary and first motivation for making corepkg at the start was how long it took tce-update to work. Then a few days after I started (it was 80% complete at the time), I saw a member here post about how slow it took tce-update to work for them. A few days later (just before the convention), I saw Robert mention that something was being worked on for 4.3 to help address this. CorePkg was complete and working by then (I sent a PM to Robert at this time introducing my software and what it did). It was a little after that that I announced CorePkg publicly.

Keeping that in mind, corepkg's second primary motivation was simply speed. If the official tools can detect potential updates quicker and perform keyword searches quicker than corepkg, I'll re-consider whether corepkg needs to exist. If corepkg is faster at both than the current tools and those in testing for 4.3, I'll keep working on it. CorePkg will never be faster at fetching extensions and/or installing them, as it uses the very same methods as tce-load does (wget to get the software, tce-load to install them).

The timings I made for corepkg are on the previous page. I can't time appbrowser doing a keyword search because I don't think it accepts one on the command line.

[roberts]

My primary and first motivation for making corepkg at the start was how long it took tce-update to work. Then a few days after I started (it was 80% complete at the time), I saw a member here post about how slow it took tce-update to work for them. A few days later (just before the convention), I saw Robert mention that something was being worked on for 4.3 to help address this. CorePkg was complete and working by then (I sent a PM to Robert at this time introducing my software and what it did). It was a little after that that I announced CorePkg publicly.

Stop with the suppositions and taunting.
Facts using an md5 database was internally suggested to me on Jan 11.
Your first PM to me is dated Jan 16. However the result is A 4MB database versus 96k. A intergated GUI versus command line. Integrated code versus an extension requiring connection to an offsite database thay can never be as current as the official site.




I

[martin]

My primary and first motivation for making corepkg at the start was how long it took tce-update to work. Then a few days after I started (it was 80% complete at the time), I saw a member here post about how slow it took tce-update to work for them. A few days later (just before the convention), I saw Robert mention that something was being worked on for 4.3 to help address this. CorePkg was complete and working by then (I sent a PM to Robert at this time introducing my software and what it did). It was a little after that that I announced CorePkg publicly.

Stop with the suppositions and taunting.
Facts using an md5 database was internally suggested to me on Jan 11.
Your first PM to me is dated Jan 16. However the result is A 4MB database versus 96k. A intergated GUI versus command line. Integrated code versus an extension requiring connection to an offsite database thay can never be as current as the official site.




I

wrong thread. and I didn't know on the 16th that another one was being worked on, so I had no idea. besides, I thought this was already resolved? I mean, it's not like it's going to make the work you have put in your version redundant, so it's not like there is a threat or anything.

[martin]

Let it be known that I have privately made another offer of reconcilliation towards Robert and to make amends for whatever it was I did to offend and upset him. I really, REALLY do not know what it was! I'm not kidding, being sarcastic or provocative at all.

Just trying to amicably fix this. My offer is on the table.

edit: come on Robert, please don't let a potentially great partnership (we are all partners in helping make TinyCore Linux awesome and useful for all computer uses) and possible friendship turn sour.

[martin]

One more. Whether you're annoyed at the seeming duplication of effort or what, I don't know because so far you wont tell me.

So, another gesture to prove I only want to help, contribute and what not. If not the updates and keyword search facilities, tell me then, what parts you DO need or want assistance with in the base. I've contributed several extensions of programs I use a lot so I can enjoy them under TCL. Tell me then, where would you like the extra man power within the base or another part of the project and I'll get to work.

No kidding, if this is the only way I can prove to you beyond all doubt I have only good intent here, so be it.

[martin]

Ok, another. It seems Robert has the impression that I am implying, throughout this thread, that he produced a better (than is currently used) updater system as a result of me mentioning mine to him.

Let me state definitely, here, that I had no idea whatsoever that he was already working on something at the same time I was, in fact, he started working on his BEFORE I did. Only, I did not know it. I independently came up with my own idea for the design of CorePkg, without any external help, suggestion or influence, and Robert was working on his, in a way he can explain if he wants to, in his own way.

Mine is made by me, following my own "developer's itch" and later re-enforced by seeing a member's posting here. At best, I had started work on mine on late 15th of January, whereas he was working on his earlier. I made mine all in C, using SQLite3 for data manipulation and Robert (as he said to me) based on the internal utilities of busybox.

He built his, I'm sure, to be functional and use the existing base without needing any extra help that would inflate core.gz. I was merely building on the flexibility of SQL and concentrating on speeding up what it was made for.

Robert: as you can see, this post contains no direct quote from any private message, excepting the first sentence only carries an abstract and vague reference (but definitely no quote, copy and paste, or anything) to give readers context and to allow people here to reach their own logical conclusion.

Once more, Robert's came first, I wrote mine without knowing he was working on his, the primary difference is the design and mechanism.

edit: clarity.

[vinnie]

Martin forgive me, I do not speak English and I find it hard to read such long posts.
Seems to me that Robert has given you permission to send the TCZ to the repository,
I think that's a good thing, it allows users to use it and test it.
Maybe it just takes a little patience, in all the other distros I've tried there have always been different packagemanager alternative in the repository.

[martin]

More than one member here has hinted to me at the probable source of Robert's abrasive attitude towards me and that I need to be very sensitive, extra patient and also diplomatic in the whole thing. (Which I've tried, really)

I have also appreciated the PM's of support, not only of my efforts to attempt to resolve this with Robert but also for having a go with CorePkg.

However, last night, I came to the conclusion that logically, I see no reason why I need to pander to Robert's needs.

So after an intensive several hours long session following a few guides and performing a lot of mkdir'ing and gcc'ing, I have an optimised base system for my own project which has been created from scratch, built around corepkg. I have named it the same as my previous TinyCore fork (but uses nothing from TinyCore's base whatsoever, I use a brand new package installer as well).

Someone else will have to take over maintenance of xzgv, xterm, xtrans, rp-pppoe and the recently submitted fbpanel in the repository, because I wont be anymore.

I wont be quitting this community entirely (unless my account is forcefully closed), I will just no longer be contributing anything to (Tiny)Core Linux.

Thank you, it's been (mostly) fun.

PS: For those interested, I'll be closing down the sourceforge project too. The sources there are about 3 revisions behind anyway, and there have been several large improvements and bug fixes since then.
Disclaimer: This post contains no direct quotes from any private messages. Only vague references have been made to provide context.

[vinnie]

I'm sorry, unfortunately we can not always go in agreement, best wishes for the project and fun for the future.

[CaptBill]

I'm sad.

On one side, there is Tiny Core a great toolkit to build special systems, distributions, remasters (you can name them as you want). Flexible, easy to customize, efficient. A great tool to make your own system.

On the other side there is a person who invest time, energy to use it for such purpose and to implement what he think is useful and to create a new desktop system. I have never tried it, but all my symphaty goes to those creating something new, somethin different.

Now his project is dead according to its WEB site:

The Nucleus Desktop is no more. We recommend TinyCore Linux instead.

I'm sad. I'm really sad to see a project to die before its birth.

Guess it will have to go out to the porch like poor Lazarus just did.

I'm curious here...what is the point of having an OS in component form if you you are breaking the the license by using it for it's STATED PURPOSE- a modular OS centered around full customization from the ground up based on personal needs?

Is a personal repository via a database a no-no? Is that 'taking free to far' or something?

If I build a custom PPR have I or anyone 'broke the law' ?

 

[gerald_clark]

CaptBill, I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

[CaptBill]

CaptBill, I suggest you re-read the whole thread.

What you really mean to say is 'read between the lines' concerning what is to be considered 'lawful use'...

Seems a 'yes' or 'no' would be nice concerning legal matters before investing time and energy, reading, re-reading and reading again. Could have swore I read 'free to use'.

I certainly won't fault anyone because I 'see' the political hot potato ,'TinyCore' ,for what it is. How am I to judge what I don't know?

So all I will do is express my exasperation with the whole online legality quandary that abounds. No different than Windows, really. Actually, Windows seems the lesser offender because it is not 'sold' as free when it's not really 'free', like Gpl seems to be.

I spent a couple hours this morning trying to figure out how to be sure my Windows wasn't trying me a 'pirate', and now I can't figure out if Gpl is doing the same or could potentially.

Rather fair question that I know is hard to answer so I leave it there

Thank you all

[gerald_clark]

Free to use means you can "use" it.
Distributing is not "using" and has specific requirements per the GPL.

[CaptBill]

Free to use means you can "use" it.
Distributing is not "using" and has specific requirements per the GPL.

So you are the 'Dealers' and we are just 'users'.

Thanks for clarifying that.

At least you came right out and said it.

I respect that.

[vinnie]

One way to clarify is to read the license terms, CaptBill, you know the terms of the GPL?
Redistribuition is not denied, but is permitted only in accordance with respecting some requirements.
Frankly I think the GPL is a good licenze because it protects intellectual property (or call it paternity) of a work without denying the intellectual property (or call it chance to learn) of others.
It is a restrictive license, but because it is protecting the interests of the community

Other licenses such as the bsd do not.
This bsd like licenses are very intellectually honest (or philosophically higher if you want), but look at what makes the apple to take advantage of it ...