Tiny Core Base > Release Candidate Testing
tinycore_v2.8rc3
MakodFilu:
:facepalm:
Back on topic, I installed 2.8rc3 in a Fujitsu Siemens and it works like a charm.
The idea about using .dep files instead of symlinks is worth considering, IMHO. Downside is TCZ repo would be implied instead of refered directly.
Upside is that it would create and load something like 'bare.dep' as default, and provide room for future dialog at boot time if more than a personal .dep file us there, like 'vm.dep', 'webserver.dep', 'workstation.dep' and so on.
I am suggesting only, in fact I don't like 'bare.dep' because it would be easily confused with 'base'.
bigpcman:
--- Quote from: roberts on January 18, 2010, 03:48:05 PM ---I have since posted that "I am cutting the FAT" from the usbinstall script.
Thus the usbinstall script will only support ext file systems.
--- End quote ---
So to make this perfectly clear unlike in the past the tce directory must now be in a *nix ext2/3 partition. I assume the "boot" directory can still be in a fat or ext2/3 partition. Do I have this right?
gerald_clark:
I know Robert wants to get rid of vfat support, but for those of you who had rc2 on a fat fs, and now
have problems because of no symlinks, I have a solution.
Symlinks are not an issue.
tce-setup only looks at the filenames in tce.
Instead of symlinks, you can use touch to create a 0 length file in tce of the same name.
Perhaps Robert could change the symlinks into 0 length files to eliminate this issue.
Perhaps eliminating vfat is a better solution.
bigpcman:
--- Quote from: gerald_clark on January 18, 2010, 08:02:12 PM ---I know Robert wants to get rid of vfat support, but for those of you who had rc2 on a fat fs, and now
have problems because of no symlinks, I have a solution.
Symlinks are not an issue.
tce-setup only looks at the filenames in tce.
Instead of symlinks, you can use touch to create a 0 length file in tce of the same name.
Perhaps Robert could change the symlinks into 0 length files to eliminate this issue.
Perhaps eliminating vfat is a better solution.
--- End quote ---
This does not solve the "tce-load -w -i" or app browser created sym links. eh?
roberts:
To state that you know I want to get rid of vfat support then subvert the effort that was a Team decisions and not mine alone is not really helpful.
Users trying to place persistent home and/or persistent opt on vfat are just some of the reasons for our collective decision.
If fact a zero length file was considered and rejected. Why hold back *nix capabilities supporting an acient and easily corruptable Windows file system!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version