General TC > Programming & Scripting - Unofficial

urlencode_build script

<< < (2/2)

gerald_clark:
Yes, building and submitting the tcz is the proper thing to do.
The build scripts are submitted with the tcz as described in the wiki.
They are not posted in the forum.

mocore:

--- Quote from: gerald_clark on August 11, 2015, 02:26:13 PM ---Yes, building and submitting the tcz is the proper thing to do.
The build scripts are submitted with the tcz as described in the wiki.
They are not posted in the forum.

--- End quote ---

why not ? ... (and is this policy stated any where other than this post?)

relevant : https://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php/topic,27320.msg175869.html#msg175869

reiterating:

--- Quote from: mocore on August 11, 2015, 02:11:26 PM ---
Question's
Will the buildscripts/tree/  ever contain any scripts ?

--- End quote ---

& wrt the above (now dead link to ) buildscripts/tree/
---
from : How to know which extension version is installed?

--- Quote from: curaga on May 23, 2017, 02:31:28 PM ---There is no historical archive of versions/md5sums anywhere, so it's not possible to know how many versions were skipped. edit: or to download a certain old extension version.

--- End quote ---
...

--- Quote from: Zlika on May 24, 2017, 03:33:42 AM ---Thank you for your answers.
That's definitively a big issue of the extension system. I hope it will be fixed in a latter release.
Downloading the info file is only a dirty workaround because:
* there is no way to download both the tcz and the info file in a single "transaction" (that means that the info file can change while we are downloading the tcz file)
* the info file is only for information purpose and does not really encode a clear, unique and consistent version number (different versions of the same tcz are often uploaded with the same info file)

Another big flaw of the way extensions are managed in TinyCore is that there is no clear link to the source code that was compiled to produce the tcz binary, so it is not possible to recompile the extensions from sources by ourself, or check that no backdoor was introduced in the extension. For example, I provided the openjdk-8 extensions, and nobody asked me for the source code! It amazed me, because I read an article from the original author of TinyCore saying that extensions were always built from sources and that no binary extension without source code was allowed: that's simply untrue.

I am concerned of the security implications of all these points.

--- End quote ---
---

Rich:
Hi mocore

--- Quote from: mocore on October 20, 2024, 06:51:54 AM ---
--- Quote from: gerald_clark on August 11, 2015, 02:26:13 PM ---Yes, building and submitting the tcz is the proper thing to do.
The build scripts are submitted with the tcz as described in the wiki.
They are not posted in the forum.

--- End quote ---
...
--- End quote ---
I'm presuming that last sentence was referring to both tczs and build scripts.

Extensions (tczs) belong in a centralized location (repo) where they can easily
be found, not scattered throughout the forum as attachments.

Build scripts belong under  VERSION/ARCH/tcz/src/ExtensionName/  for the
same reason listed above.


--- Quote --- ... why not ? ... (and is this policy stated any where other than this post?) ...
--- End quote ---
We are not lawyers, so not all policies are carved in stone.

We also don't have a written policy against using attachments as storage space for your computer.
That doesn't mean it's OK and will be tolerated.


--- Quote --- ... why not ? ... (and is this policy stated any where other than this post?) ...
--- End quote ---
As far as extensions are concerned, here:

--- Quote from: ^thehatsrule^ on November 06, 2010, 02:38:00 PM ---2. No attachments/links of binary extensions
--- End quote ---

Although it's not stated, we do allow links to our own repositories.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page