I vote for ... (see the post) as scm ->

[floppy]

- gparted
- skype-oss
- minefield
- wxcam
(I dont want to buy 3x 1GB RAM for my new HP DC7100..)

[curaga]

(I dont want to buy 3x 1GB RAM for my new HP DC7100..)

I don't see how this is related, scms use more RAM than tcz in the usual case.

[AbNoRMiS]

tcl 4.4 works perfect on my compaq evo d500 with 512mb ram
and frankly, for me not hot nor cold when scm is present or not
nothing has changed except mount point and unmount features
then it would be simpler to add unmount features to appbrouser
i still don't understand the general prospects of scm separation

[gerald_clark]

Standard extensions have their files scattered all over the place, and may have or be deps.
Umounting them safely is not a trivial matter.
Self Contained Modules on the other hand have all their files in one place, and should not depend on or be dependents of other scms.

[AbNoRMiS]

i see that all tcz are mounted separately from each other to /tmp/tcloop as well as scm to /apps
of course they depend on each other as well by the way, and scm also so far have dependencies
but the problem of dependencies as i see has been solved by roberts in the script tce-audit
if execute

Code: [Select]

tce-audit builddb
tce-audit delete /path/to/tcedir/extension.tcz
gets the file /tmp/audit_marked.lst with extension dependencies which should be removed (or unmounted)
i understand that the tce-unload creation is not a trivial task given that the tce-load is about 300 lines of code

[Rich]

Hi AbNoRMiS
Removing a tcz sounds like a simple task. Have a script check the extensions dependencies, see if they are
required by any other installed extensions, and simply remove them if they are not required, right? Wrong.
What if one of the dependencies is a stand alone application that you want to keep. Here's an example:
You install gcc.tcz to compile some programs you are working on. You decide to try an IDE so you install
codeblocks.tcz. Then you decide codeblocks isn't right for you so you uninstall it. Since gcc is a dependency
of codeblocks, your compiler will be removed. Without human intervention, the script has no way of knowing
you want to keep this application. No tool could know this. That's why AppsAudit shows you a list of which
dependencies will be removed and gives you the opportunity to modify that list. Although not with those
particular two extensions, that is exactly what happened to me once. That is one of the problems an SCM
can potentially solve. Another thing an SCM addresses is when an application needs a specific version of
a library that might otherwise conflict with the default library installed on the system.

[AbNoRMiS]

sorry, Rich, i talking about only unloading tcz but not about removing them
any unloaded tcz even by mistake can be downloaded again if needed
the more so the AppsAudit could provide a choice which tcz not to unload
here i don't see the problem and don't see the potential advantages from scm
i agree about some programs which working with specific libraries versions
this applies to some non-free programs, for example avast4workstation
but why should duplicate the entire repo of tcz with open source code?

[Rich]

Hi AbNoRMiS
As I said, AppsAudit does provide a choice to remove individual items from the list of items to remove. My
point was that you still need to look at it. There also the matter removing links that are created.

[AmatCoder]

Removing a tcz sounds like a simple task. Have a script check the extensions dependencies, see if they are
required by any other installed extensions, and simply remove them if they are not required, right? Wrong.
What if one of the dependencies is a stand alone application that you want to keep. Here's an example:
You install gcc.tcz to compile some programs you are working on. You decide to try an IDE so you install
codeblocks.tcz. Then you decide codeblocks isn't right for you so you uninstall it. Since gcc is a dependency
of codeblocks, your compiler will be removed. Without human intervention, the script has no way of knowing
you want to keep this application. No tool could know this[...]

I see the others advantages from scm extensions, but I believe that can be done with tcz extensions with some kind of 'reference counting'.

Example:
tce-load could store how extension was loaded (0:manually or 1:from dep file). So only extensions loaded from dep file will be unmounted.

Also it should check that extensions from dep files are not needed by other extensions that are still mounted.

It's not trivial but technically possible, I believe.

[Rich]

Hi AmatCoder
While that would probably work, I don't think it's worth adding the complexity of trying to keep track of how every
extension was installed for a few reasons. Most users don't (hopefully) spend all their time installing and uninstalling
extensions. While my example was real, I don't know how many other instances like that there are. I was just trying
to point out that there are possible pitfalls to consider. Also, based on past history, there will be individuals who
insist on bypassing the system and installing/removing things manually, and breaking that mechanism in the
process.

[jls]

I woluld like to have gftp2 or filezilla as scm.
Thanx

[Jason W]

I will look into those soon.

[SamK]

How about gnome-mplayer? 
http://sites.google.com/site/kdekorte2/gnomemplayer
Despite its name:

Gnome MPlayer is not dependent on any Gnome libraries.

I have only used the GTK2 version. When used as an audio player it makes the fewest demands for CPU of the many GUI audio players I have tried (also some command line ones).

[uggla]

DeVeDe (http://www.devede.org/) would be nice. 

Last time I installed in on TC it needed the following extensions:

Mplayer-xorg.tcz
mencoder-svn.tcz
dvdauthor.tcz
vcdimager.tcz
mkisofs-tools.tcz
python.tcz
pygtk-2.7.tcz
libiconv.tcz

[Jason W]

I have a fully self contained devede with deps almost complete, more of a prototype, we will see how it works.