Tiny Core Base > TCB Tips & Tricks
Overlay initrd files using cat
tinypoodle:
--- Quote from: gerald_clark on January 20, 2011, 10:47:41 AM ---Tinypoodle is right. .gz will consume more memory than loop mounted .tcz.
Some thoughts:
Instead of using .gz files to update mc to tc, they should be made into tcz extensions. ( Poodles suggestion )
The .gz loads before .tgz issue could be resolved with an xincludes.lst similar to onboot.lst if necessary.
This optimizes for memory
--- End quote ---
The way you put it makes it somehow like a choice of the lesser evil; the one at the expense of the other.
Perhaps a way could be found so that needn't be so.
This may sound odd to some but...
What if taking one of those extensions in question and placing them into /opt/tce/optional into a gzip'ed cpio archive?
With the status quo, as an example, say if a user prefers the newer Xvesa.tcz version and one of the former default wm's (jwm.tcz, flwm.tcz [original]), it would not be anything uncommon to use "dynamic remastering" (see wiki) and load these extensions from an additional cpio archive.
In such a way the memory optimization provided by squashfs could be gained without being
--- Quote ---at the expense of the flexibility of including the .gz files in the initrd definition in the boot loader.
--- End quote ---
gerald_clark:
I am merely presenting views and observations from several different angles in order to draw out discussion.
.gz and .tcz both have advantages and disadvantages.
I'm all for making MC the core with TC an add-on.
The question is how.
Currently, the ugrade from MC to TC is a mixture of .gz and .tcz. I feel they should all be one or the other.
I personally don't like the wbar.tcz and flwm.tcz as the tce-update downgrades them for release candidates.
Perhaps the core X .tcz files should not be in optional so extension updates don't touch them.
This would allow Xlibs and Xprogs to be loop mounted .tcz files with the associated RAM savings.
hiro:
What I like in poodles suggestion of creating a .gz of /opt extensions is that it would be compatible to my practice of putting Xorg in /opt
Only the user doesn't notice, because it's hidden in the .gz
Also for people wanting to remaster it serves as a great example for what opt might be for.
roberts:
--- Quote from: gerald_clark on January 20, 2011, 02:23:04 PM ---I am merely presenting views and observations from several different angles in order to draw out discussion.
.gz and .tcz both have advantages and disadvantages.
I'm all for making MC the core with TC an add-on.
The question is how.
Currently, the ugrade from MC to TC is a mixture of .gz and .tcz. I feel they should all be one or the other.
--- End quote ---
This would heavily favor tcz for the additional option of mounting and update (zsync see below).
--- Quote ---I personally don't like the wbar.tcz and flwm.tcz as the tce-update downgrades them for release candidates.
--- End quote ---
IMHO Testing release candidates should not weight heavily in such decision.
--- Quote ---Perhaps the core X .tcz files should not be in optional so extension updates don't touch them.
This would allow Xlibs and Xprogs to be loop mounted .tcz files with the associated RAM savings.
--- End quote ---
I would think that the "check for updates" process these tczs should be included. It would make for an easier system update. Again sans any consideration of release candidate testing.
tczs also have the update advantage of zsync which would make their download time much quicker to perform a system update.
gerald_clark:
I agree with all those observations.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version