|
|
|
Home » Developing U++ » Releasing U++ » Linux release coobook
| Linux release coobook [message #13765] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 08:17  |
 |
mirek
Messages: 14257
Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
Well, I will try to describe raw process of .deb creation here, I hope anybody interested will fill in the missing parts:
First, get actual sources. Here the path has two options - either download "src", unzip and get package. Anyway, in the future, "src" should have makefile included, so it will linux releaser responsibility. Therefore, install Win32 version and take sources from it (e.g. dual boot). (Note: getting sources this way instead of uvs2/svn is essential in order to have the same code for all releases).
Now get previous .deb file. Read this:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8047723203.html
then read "dpkg" to learn how to "unpack" existing .deb package. Unpack old .deb, so that you will get all files and directory structure as required.
Replace sources (delete whole folders, then place new versions), recompile theide in optimal mode (check the size of result, should not be too different from previous version), replace theide. Then use dpkg to create .deb. Try to install it.
Create src package with makefile is sort of similar - only instead of compiling theide you use theide "Export makefile".
Now, what about .rpm?
Mirek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Linux release coobook [message #13783 is a reply to message #13778] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 17:36  |
nixnixnix
Messages: 415
Registered: February 2007
Location: Kelowna, British Columbia
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I agree. As a user, I will be happy to install whichever version of Ubuntu I need in order to have a working UPP under linux. (I currently use ubuntu 7.04 and kubuntu hardy heron alpha2)
just my 2c
Nick
EDIT: wow the new beta is shiny! it builds much faster and it doesn't crash horribly on exit 
[Updated on: Sat, 26 January 2008 17:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Linux release coobook [message #13784 is a reply to message #13783] |
Sat, 26 January 2008 17:48 |
|
|
Where can i read about rpm building?
I try to build rpm, but dependencies is not working.
After install rpm, I must install dev-packages.
SergeyNikitin<U++>( linux, wine )
{
under( Ubuntu || Debian || Raspbian );
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Linux release coobook [message #13874 is a reply to message #13872] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 18:26 |
guido
Messages: 169
Registered: April 2006
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
| mdelfede wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 17:39 |
| luzr wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 17:30 |
Well, I had big hopes for LSB.... 4 years ago.
|
It doesn't work ? From the web it seems that most major linux distros are LSB compliant...
Max
|
The LSB exists, theoretically it works, but nobody wants it.
The official distro independent binaries of Firefox, OpenOffice, Acrobat, Flash don't bother with it - nobody does!
Dealing with the LSB build environment is a royal PITA.
And if you build that way, it won't work on the hundreds of non-LSB distros. Why would you do that, when all that is really needed is linking against an old version of the libc, and then the binary will work for everybody.
The LSB is a link-level fork - stupid IMHO.
Guido
|
|
|
|
| Re: Linux release coobook [message #13875 is a reply to message #13874] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 19:03 |
cbpporter
Messages: 1427
Registered: September 2007
|
Ultimate Contributor |
|
|
| Quote: |
Well, I had big hopes for LSB.... 4 years ago.
|
| Quote: |
The LSB exists, theoretically it works, but nobody wants it.
|
Me too! I was really fed up with a lot of binary incompatibility, endless recompiles from sources and back then I was quite the Linux enthusiast (I still like it today, and use it from time too time). The idea is good, the implementation is not that great and the adoption is horrible. Even if most of today's distros are LSB compliant, that only means that other LSB compliant software would find a working LSB runtime and would have no problem running. For a software to be LSB compliant, it must use the LSB core (which is very poorly placed in the filesystem IMO, reducing the flexibility of "system" paths) and all the libraries must either be LSB compliant or static linking must be used. The last time I checked, the number of LSB compliant applications and libraries was close to zero (I mean a relative closeness: with thousands of libraries if you have 20 done, you're close to zero), and static linking is practically impossible with any non trivial applications. Try static linking with dozens of libs and you'll get huge exe sizes and a great redundancy in the binary files.
But for U++, it would be easier to produce LSB compliant programs. Reliance on external libraries is very low (I believe only some optional gtk libs for skinning, which I don't really know if there are any LSB versions of) and the rest of system calls could be routed toward the LSB runtime by using their tools and some not to hard tweaking of the build process (please correct me if I'm wrong).
While this is possible, I think the question is: who cares? Most distros don't even have LSB selected by default on their general installation option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Linux release coobook [message #13877 is a reply to message #13875] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 19:46 |
mdelfede
Messages: 1308
Registered: September 2007
|
Ultimate Contributor |
|
|
| cbpporter wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 19:03 |
But for U++, it would be easier to produce LSB compliant programs. Reliance on external libraries is very low......
|
That's what I was thinking too... Upp is library that is almost self-contained, so should impose fery few requirements on external libs
| Quote: |
.........
While this is possible, I think the question is: who cares? Most distros don't even have LSB selected by default on their general installation option.
|
Well, I think it wouldn't be bad to try it. If it works for 4-5 major distros, it's much better than nothing. LSB environment is maybe poor, but it can work for Upp... maybe.
Ciao
Max
[Updated on: Wed, 30 January 2008 19:47] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Linux release coobook [message #13882 is a reply to message #13878] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 22:40 |
|
mirek
Messages: 14257
Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
| mdelfede wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 14:02 |
| luzr wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 19:41 |
Actually, considering LSB, I think there is a new standard for desktop linux nowadays... It is called Ubuntu.
|
Well, I agree that's the best distro available today, but you can't call it a standard. There are many RH and Novell users.
I don't know which part of all linux users has ubuntu... do you ?
Max
|
That is not the end of story. There are many derivative distros of Ubuntu, with compatible .debs, reusing Ubuntu's repository.
Sure, same can be said for RH/Novell, but these are mostly server variant copies...
Mirek
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 12 23:14:34 CEST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02878 seconds
|
|
|
Members
Pages
Help
Register
Login
Home
