tinycore_v2.0rc1

[roberts]

Now posted Tiny Core V2.0 Release Candidate 1.

http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/tinycorelinux/2.x/release/

* New kernel 2.6.29.1
* New glibc 2.9
* New libstdc++ and libgcc
* New ldconfig
* New base Xlibs
* New squashfs module to base for support of squash'ed extensions.
* New cryptohome to use AES.
* New mount and losetup
* New virtual drive support.
* New fl_picsee replaces imlib2_view
* Updated .xsession
* Updated mousetool
* Updated appbrowser
* Fixed .jwmrc screenshot bug
* Many many updated extensions including the toolchain, for best results use appbrowser get extensions.


Do not mix Tiny Core 1.x with Tiny Core 2.x.
They have different modules and major library changes.

Use caution if trying to use your backup file from Tiny Core 1.x.
The file /opt/.tcrc points to the repository and needs to be set for 2.x as shown:

Mirror: distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/tinycorelinux/2.x
Protocol: http
Repository: tce

Other files that have changed that might be in your backup or persistent store:
.jwmrc
.xsession

Caution: Trying to use TC 1.x extensions with TC 2.x is not advised. The libraries and modules have all changed.

[Juanito]

Now we changed out the xlibs in the base, it would be good if there were a corresponding xlibs-base-devs extension (including fontenc I guess) 

[curaga]

Do you mean Xorg-7.4-dev just without the static libs?

[Juanito]

I was meaning a subset of xorg-7.4-dev - containing only the headers, pc, static libs corresponding the the xlibs in the base - as per xorg-dev-light, done previously

I guess also the .pc, .la should refer to libs in /usr/lib rather than /usr/local/lib?

[curaga]

Libtool and pc inconsistencies should be all gone this time, as the base libs were built directly to /usr/lib. I was hoping there would be no need for a stripped extension. However if you think it's necessary, I'll see to it soon.

[Juanito]

Well, I may be wrong, but if you compile someting that only requires the base xlibs against the full xorg-devs, I have a feeling that either the compile will fail or the final application will fail when it cannot find an xlib that is in the full xorg but not the base because it picked up an optional dependency?

..anyway, no need to make any new extension just yet, let's try and see first