oolite-saves and GNUStep directories

Website · Post by **DaddyHoggy** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:41 pm

zevans wrote:
I've had a poke round the Ubuntu package and the Debian upstream package, and I have emailed the guy with his name all over the packages to see if he's still around, given that everything seems to be from 2006!

Meanwhile I am going to checkout the version from Debian SVN. I think my cunning plan for a trunk nightly package IS going to work because there is very little in the Debian SVN repos itself and there is an OrigURL tag.

Meanwhile part II the /home/ze/GNUstep/Library/Caches/Oolite-cache.plist file is one of the biggest files on my root now (only the kernel is comparable) which means I'm going to need a cunning plan to get it moved to whereever Ubuntu is supposed to put big game-related files. Not home, that's for sure, probably /usr/games...

I'll start a Linux packaging thread when I begin to get somewhere, because it now looks like this has all been in suspended animation since 2006 which is probably before Giles handed over?

I helped Getafix test a new build/installer for Ubuntu only a few months ago...

zevans · Post by **zevans** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:15 pm

I think I have caused confusion!

The Debian package build stuff in "our" trunk works rather well, and I hadn't realised how much of it was already there until I went and looked in the tree. Whilst I was doing that and reading Micha's comments in the changelog, Micha posted here to tell me about it.

The Debian package in Debian itself is 1.65 and doesn't seem to have been touched since 2006, except for some minor bits and bobs that came out when it was being Ubuntu-ised downstream. So Debian and Ubuntu repos are both well behind and it would be nice to get 1.72.2 into those. That's what I was thinking of.

Getafix/Micha's stuff works so well that you can pretty much ignore the complicated stuff in the first post on this thread, except you still need to ensure you have the right -dev build packages.

The rest of the complication is now replaced by

Code: Select all

svn co http://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/oolite-linux/trunk

to pull the latest code and

Code: Select all

make -f Makefile deb-pkg

and then a coffee - and two .deb packages will magically appear.

You can then

Code: Select all

sudo dpkg -i oolite*.deb

and you will have a handy-dandy nightly build installed, and easily uninstallable because it's now packaged up neatly.

I'll start posting the resulting .debs to box.net every so often, with some suitable warnings splashed on them about using trunk - how about that?

Post by **Micha** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:41 pm

zevans wrote:

Micha wrote:
Oh, the Debian packaging has also been completely overhauled
So I see now - cool! Some bloke called Micha seems to have done all the work already.

I'm afraid I can't really take the blame for this - while I did some work and checked it in, dsalt provided most of the current framework and I believe did some more tweaking as well since then.

Post by **Micha** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:44 pm

DaddyHoggy wrote:
I helped Getafix test a new build/installer for Ubuntu only a few months ago...

That is a generic linux installer which should work on most/all Linux distros and is a completely separate thing from the Debian/Ubuntu package installer.

For Debian/Ubuntu, I'd personally recommend to stick with the Debian packages as that plays nicer with the Debian way of doing things.

But as always, in Linux, many roads lead home. Pick the one you like best

Post by **Micha** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:49 pm

zevans wrote:
The Debian package in Debian itself is 1.65 and doesn't seem to have been touched since 2006, except for some minor bits and bobs that came out when it was being Ubuntu-ised downstream. So Debian and Ubuntu repos are both well behind and it would be nice to get 1.72.2 into those. That's what I was thinking of.

The most likely reason the official Debian packaged version hasn't been updated is that we haven't declared another release as being 'stable', even though 1.72, for all intents and purposes, is probably more stable than 1.65 (some of the longer serving members may clarify here).

Since we haven't had another 'stable' release, distros like Debian aren't likely to include them.

I believe the current plan is to drive 1.73 to 'stable'? At least, this 'MNSR' thing keeps getting mentioned...

Website · Post by **DaddyHoggy** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:57 pm

Micha wrote:
zevans wrote:
The Debian package in Debian itself is 1.65 and doesn't seem to have been touched since 2006, except for some minor bits and bobs that came out when it was being Ubuntu-ised downstream. So Debian and Ubuntu repos are both well behind and it would be nice to get 1.72.2 into those. That's what I was thinking of.
The most likely reason the official Debian packaged version hasn't been updated is that we haven't declared another release as being 'stable', even though 1.72, for all intents and purposes, is probably more stable than 1.65 (some of the longer serving members may clarify here).

Since we haven't had another 'stable' release, distros like Debian aren't likely to include them.

I believe the current plan is to drive 1.73 to 'stable'? At least, this 'MNSR' thing keeps getting mentioned...

I think Ahruman defines stable as features which are introduced but are then suddenly whipped away for whatever reason rather than the code crashing less...

zevans · Post by **zevans** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:55 pm

The most likely reason the official Debian packaged version hasn't been updated is that we haven't declared another release as being 'stable', even though 1.72, for all intents and purposes, is probably more stable than 1.65 (some of the longer serving members may clarify here).

That's exactly it - just had a reply from the Debian maintainer saying the same thing.

BUT - if anyone came to this forum saying they had a problem with 1.65, they would probably be greeted with a chorus of "go to 1.72.2," so if we're currently supporting anything as the stable version... surely it's 1.72.2 in all but name?

There is of course always "experimental," we can definitely justify that and the reply I got had some do's and don'ts around that idea.

I believe the current plan is to drive 1.73 to 'stable'? At least, this 'MNSR' thing keeps getting mentioned...

That's my understanding too, but it's really up to the people putting endless days of effort into the code, which doesn't currently include me!

saint · Post by **saint** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:27 pm

Ahruman wrote:
Regarding the Linux issues:
It is apparently possible to install GNUStep in such a way that it follows Linux conventions regarding its folders.

I fear that making it obey the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard requires something more than rebuilding.

GNUStep is not a directory littering your home, is a directory where GNUstep related things go (i.e. WindowMaker themes and icons).

The renaming trick is fine for personal use, if you don't use other GNUstep apps or WindowMaker.

Personally, I am quite fond of this old pal (about 15 years) and the rainbow titlebars matching my TIE custom paintjob

.