[WIP] Debian packaging #491
Conversation
|
I should add a few things: First, this is motivated by repeatedly running into people waiting for instructions on how to install Cockatrice on Linux. Handing out lengthy instructions on how to compile from source are not the answer. =) Second, it would be nice to have nightly builds automatically on launchpad. I've made this happen on launchpad, purely for proof-of-concept: https://launchpad.net/~m.br/+archive/ubuntu/cockatrice And finally, I have little interest in maintaining this aspect, as creating debian packages is a real pain. It would be great if someone could pick this up - I'll glady give advice on how to get the automatic builds on launchpads set up; it's rather easy as most of the work is in the |
|
|
||
| override_dh_auto_configure: | ||
| mkdir $(BUILDDIR) | ||
| cd $(BUILDDIR) && cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DWITH_QT4=1 -DWITH_CLIENT=1 -DWITH_SERVER=1 -DWITH_ORACLE=1 -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/usr |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't really want to target Qt4 by default. It would be better to make it use qt5.
For the server I think a multi-build makes sense - cockatrice / cockatrice-server. You can have them both built from the same config
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe that is possible, but I'll leave fixing that up to whoever takes over. As mentioned, I'm out =).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Daenyth what is your thought process behind making it multi-build option? On one hand I would agree options are nice, but for most users it just adds confusion and for the ones that take the time to look into the differences there is a high likely hood they are going to configure things how they choose to rather than rely on pre-defined set of config options.
edit:
Plus, your talking about a very minimal amount of resource overhead to compile both the client and server rather than one or the other.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By multi-build I mean latest ubuntu desktop + latest ubuntu LTS. If it's in any way a burden I'm fine saying we only support latest version period but I don't think it'll actually be that hard.
The split build is also something that we probably don't need to do
|
Just my $0.02. If the user isn't willing to put the time in to learn there operating system and how to run applications on it maybe they shouldn't be running the application. I completely disagree with the statement "Handing out lengthy instructions on how to compile from source are not the answer. =)" Plus im not so sure what 5 lines in linux is a lengthy instruction guide on how to compile from source. If Debian takes more than that and your frustrated at using it, maybe you should try a different distro. |
|
Are we going to do anything with this? |
|
Yes, I just haven't gotten around to updating it. I need to set up some ubuntu desktop VMs to test with |
|
I hope something gets done with this. I hate seeing open PRs that never get looked at x.x |
|
I'd like to pick it up but I haven't had time to iterate on it. I can direct you to some resources if you want to learn how to do deb packaging |
|
I don't see something like this happening in the near future and I think we should close this PR for now |
|
It's not hurting anything to have it open. It's a reminder for me to get around to doing it correctly... On 7/13/15, Zach notifications@github.com wrote:
|
|
What should happen to this after we merged #1646 in? |
|
It's no longer needed. |
This pull requests adds debian packaging.