Tiny Core Base > Release Candidate Testing
Core v7.0rc2
andyj:
I'll need to have different startup scripts for 32 and 64 bit because of the differences in the kernel modules versus compiled in. I've also discovered that the dependency files will need to be different because the extension names are different (procps-ng <> procps, gtk2mm <> gtkmm-2.24) and the dependencies are different. gtkmm-2.24 is missing a dependency on gtk2 so I need to specify it explicitly (until it's fixed because I'm pointing it out now ;D)
Juanito:
--- Quote from: andyj on February 19, 2016, 12:45:57 PM ---In 7.x 64-bit repository libfreetype.so.6 and libharfbuzz.so.0 are mutually dependent (per ldd), which isn't the case in 7.x 32 bit. Why is this? I have a dependency tree walking script that went into a loop.
--- End quote ---
This has been the case in corepure64 since about tc-5.x.
It was done to see if the resultant fonts looked any better.
Note that this kind of circular dependency is not that uncommon (cf cyrus-sasl and ldap), but we cannot have circular deps in tinycore dep files.
Juanito:
--- Quote from: andyj on February 19, 2016, 02:44:16 PM ---I've also discovered that the dependency files will need to be different because the extension names are different (procps-ng <> procps, gtk2mm <> gtkmm-2.24) and the dependencies are different. gtkmm-2.24 is missing a dependency on gtk2 so I need to specify it explicitly
--- End quote ---
I suspect procps-ng and procps are not the same thing?
As a general rule, we should name the extension gtk2mm (to make the difference between gtkmm for gtk2 and gtkmm for gtk3) and not gtkmm-2.24 - if only for the fact that we would have to change the name of the extension (and any deps that reference it) each time it is updated.
In addition to the missing a dep on gtk2, the gtkmm-2.24 dep file should also be expressed recursively (it is not) for the sake of efficiency, smaller tree files, etc.
All this being said, we are still grateful for any and all extension submissions from tinycore users :)
Edit: corrected gtkmm-2.24 and gtkmm-2.24-dev dep files in corepure64 5.x, 6.x and 7.x repos.
andyj:
According to the 64-bit procps description, it is procps-ng. For open-vm-tools I don't think it matters anyway. The making of the recursive dep files for my upcoming extension submissions is how this began. I'm trying to automate the process as much as possible. I've updated my tree walking script to detect circular references so it can get out of it's otherwise infinite loop. I'm using ldd and following the libraries to their extensions instead of unwinding the .dep files, which is how I found that gtk2 wasn't being specified where it should have been. Generally I agree that minor numbers aren't needed or desired for extension names, but at least for database related extensions it's very important. There is usually a very tight relationship between the data files and the software version, which is why when I submit my postgresql extensions they will include all three version level numbers.
Juanito:
Doesn't the existing postgresql extension work?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version