civil-devel Mailing List for Civil

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Marcus Alanen wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Jan Ekholm wrote:
>
>> A package does not mean that it couldn't all be installed in, say,
>> /opt/civil/ or /usr/local/civil/... It would just mean that a package is
>> basically the tar.gz unpacked in some specified location (like /opt/).
>> Should be quite easy to actually do. Maybe optionally use convenience
>> shell scripts in /usr/bin/ or similar.
>
>Hm. Yeswell. I think your last line is important. Basically you say
>"maybe do something extra" which to me sounds like a build system, of
>some kind, and of some simplicity. So I don't have anything against
>works-out-of-the-box, but I do think we'll need
>makefiles/autoconf and whatnot for the "convenience shell scripts".

I'm not sure sure about that. A "convenience shell script" doesn't have to
be more than:

#! /bin/sh
cd /opt/civil/src && ./civil.py

Or why not do them in Python as well?

-- 
          "Yes, bugger all that." said Nanny. "Let's curse somebody."
                                            -- Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Jan Ekholm wrote:

> A package does not mean that it couldn't all be installed in, say,
> /opt/civil/ or /usr/local/civil/... It would just mean that a package is
> basically the tar.gz unpacked in some specified location (like /opt/).
> Should be quite easy to actually do. Maybe optionally use convenience
> shell scripts in /usr/bin/ or similar.

Hm. Yeswell. I think your last line is important. Basically you say 
"maybe do something extra" which to me sounds like a build system, of 
some kind, and of some simplicity. So I don't have anything against 
works-out-of-the-box, but I do think we'll need 
makefiles/autoconf and whatnot for the "convenience shell scripts".

Marcus

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Marcus Alanen wrote:

>Jan Ekholm wrote:
>> What are the opinions of the silent crowd when it comes to having an
>> installer or not having one? I think I actually prefer trying to live with
>> minimum fuss when it comes to installing stuff, ie only use distutils for
>> actually building the binary modules, but nothing else. The user should be
>> able to just unpack, setup.py and then run, all done without any extra
>> copying of files, admin privlieges etc. It would all just run from the
>> unpacked directory, just like it does now. Java does the same at least on
>
>That's nice to easily try it out, and we certainly have had a fair share
>  of tar.gz downloaders compared with the prepackaged ones.
>
>However a fair share have also favoured the prepackaged ones, so it'd be
>a bit of shame if those were dropped. As you have no doubt seen by now,
>all decision by me are nondecisions...
>
>Now off to lart the rpm packager: me.

A package does not mean that it couldn't all be installed in, say,
/opt/civil/ or /usr/local/civil/... It would just mean that a package is
basically the tar.gz unpacked in some specified location (like /opt/).
Should be quite easy to actually do. Maybe optionally use convenience
shell scripts in /usr/bin/ or similar.

Or?

-- 
  +++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
                                        -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

Jan Ekholm wrote:
> What are the opinions of the silent crowd when it comes to having an
> installer or not having one? I think I actually prefer trying to live with
> minimum fuss when it comes to installing stuff, ie only use distutils for
> actually building the binary modules, but nothing else. The user should be
> able to just unpack, setup.py and then run, all done without any extra
> copying of files, admin privlieges etc. It would all just run from the
> unpacked directory, just like it does now. Java does the same at least on

That's nice to easily try it out, and we certainly have had a fair share 
  of tar.gz downloaders compared with the prepackaged ones.

However a fair share have also favoured the prepackaged ones, so it'd be 
a bit of shame if those were dropped. As you have no doubt seen by now, 
all decision by me are nondecisions...

Now off to lart the rpm packager: me.

What are the opinions of the silent crowd when it comes to having an
installer or not having one? I think I actually prefer trying to live with
minimum fuss when it comes to installing stuff, ie only use distutils for
actually building the binary modules, but nothing else. The user should be
able to just unpack, setup.py and then run, all done without any extra
copying of files, admin privlieges etc. It would all just run from the
unpacked directory, just like it does now. Java does the same at least on
Linux, and most real games just unpack into a directory that can then be
relocated.

Going the distutils way all the way would have been nice, but it just
apparently isn't really meant for installing applications with data, so it
won't really work (unless we install everything in
/usr/lib/python/site-packages [or similar location on Win/Mac]).

Any comments?

-- 

 He says gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to aim at.
                                            -- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods