Tiny Core Base > Alpha Releases
Tiny Core 5.0 Alpha 2 Testing
Juanito:
--- Quote from: genec on June 11, 2013, 05:57:33 PM ---Consistent update to Syslinux (tcz, core.gz and ISOs) would be nice.
--- End quote ---
The tc-5.x iso are generated on the server and so use the server's syslinux.
One possible solution is that, as soon as we complete tc-5.x alpha testing, you could take over the syslinux extension maintenance and adjust it to be the same version as that of the server?
coreplayer2:
Well I agree, sorry if I made it sound like I was updating everything in sight. have no fear, am not ;D
I am not usually that lucky though, if I need an app then I can almost certainly predict an update will be required. So far I have only found Opera v9 to function after the transfer. My default "Shiretoko" Firefox based browser will not run on 5.0, like most apps this may be due to dependencies more than the apps themselves ? Anyhow, I need certain apps to be functional when TC 5.0 rolls out so am taking proactive steps to test all apps I use, so far I haven't had much success. hdparm, fluff, shiretoko, etc etc.
Perhaps we should start a list of apps which need their maintainers attention? perhaps the extension requests section is appropriate? I was hoping to find maintainers all over this but haven't seen many reporting compatibility yet with their extensions, although I have noticed the app list silently growing in the 5.0 repo which is great thanks
bmarkus:
In general current 4.x extensions are expected to work. Issue is not the compatibility, but there are many unmaintained, old extensions which would need update independently of 5.x
coreplayer2:
Thanks TC Staff for this great and most appreciated kernel update. Just forgive me for being proactive, it's just that when you roll out the shiny finished product I need to be ready like yesterday..
;)
caminati:
Thanks for the update, I will give Alpha 2 a try.
Alpha 1 gave no particular problem with everyday usage.
Here I want to ask about the rationale of dropping scm support.
What is the reason? And is it a final decision?
My two cents on the issue: more than self-containedness, I regard the possibility of avoiding symlinking as the key feature of scm.
In case of software able to live outside the FHS and with many files, this means several megabytes spared when loading the extension.
A good example is LaTeX: in my recent submission of it to TC, I devised a mechanism to separate this huge piece of software into a "small" basic tcz which can compile basic TeX and LaTeX and initializes the environment to dispense with FHS, so that some additional scms can add the needed features.
The difference wrt to a standard texlive.tcz (using df -h ~) is some tens of megabytes.
Of course, I can keep this mechanism by mounting scms via a custom script, but the point I wanted to make is that scm have more than one reason to exist.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version