Why have an installation procedure at all anyway?? What’s wrong with
suppling a plain directory in a tarball/zip/whatever and run it
entirely from that directory?
Or do we need to copy all Windows concepts, mechanically and without
reasoning? This is a serious question.On 12/4/06, Gerry JJ wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:03:49 +0100, Gabriele Greco <gabriele.greco at darts.it> wrote:
I like dpkg/apt based systems but I need to make a single installation
procedure that is “idiot proof” and not
limited to a subset of the linux distributions.
What I think we need something like a Windows Installer equivalent for
Linux. A standard way of installing non-standard games and applications.
Why have an installation procedure at all anyway?? What’s wrong with
suppling a plain directory in a tarball/zip/whatever and run it
entirely from that directory?
User-friendliness. A tarball needs to be manually extracted, and doesn’t
install any links, icons or menu entries. In Gnome, double-clicking a
wrapper script (usually needed to handle included libraries and such)
doesn’t just run the file even if it has the execute bit set, it asks if
you want to execute or view the file. Also, if you want to install a
game system-wide as opposed to just in your home, it’s more complex if
you’ve only got a tarball. Tech-savvy people will of course be able to
do this easily, but you’ve got people like my mom and sister using Linux
these days. These people also play games.
Or do we need to copy all Windows concepts, mechanically and without
reasoning? This is a serious question.
No, we should of course not copy anything without any reasoning. I just
want the process of installing games to be easy and intuitive for
everyone. I’m all ears if you’ve got better suggestions.
I’m not saying tarballs is a bad idea, by the way. Like zips in Windows,
some games might be better distributed that way than with an installer.
~ GerryOn Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:54:49 +0100, Simon Roby <simon.roby at gmail.com> wrote:
Why have an installation procedure at all anyway?? What’s wrong with
suppling a plain directory in a tarball/zip/whatever and run it
entirely from that directory?
User-friendliness. A tarball needs to be manually extracted, and doesn’t
install any links, icons or menu entries. In Gnome, double-clicking a
wrapper script (usually needed to handle included libraries and such)
doesn’t just run the file even if it has the execute bit set, it asks if
you want to execute or view the file. Also, if you want to install a
game system-wide as opposed to just in your home, it’s more complex if
you’ve only got a tarball. Tech-savvy people will of course be able to
do this easily, but you’ve got people like my mom and sister using Linux
these days. These people also play games.
i suppose that is why there are a lot of linux distro’s with their own
package management. i don’t have a menu when i run apps, i usually type
in the run box on xfce4, then they stay in the recent drop down list.
osx doesnt have a menu either, users drag what they want to the dock or
desktop. (still using osx.3)
i see where you are coming from with that it can be difficult for non
tech people to install applications; that is probably a long difficult
debate as each distro attempts to solve some part of it. i usually
avoid installing anything not part of my distro as it can become tedious.
does your application compile to a single binary ? what else is
included with it if not?
matt> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:54:49 +0100, Simon Roby <simon.roby at gmail.com> wrote:
Or do we need to copy all Windows concepts, mechanically and without
reasoning? This is a serious question.
No, we should of course not copy anything without any reasoning. I just
want the process of installing games to be easy and intuitive for
everyone. I’m all ears if you’ve got better suggestions.
I’m not saying tarballs is a bad idea, by the way. Like zips in Windows,
some games might be better distributed that way than with an installer.
I guess people should manually extract archives, add menu entries as well,
and gain root privileges to be able to create the folder and move things
around, then ? Doesn’t sound very user friendly, does it ? The idea of
application folders requires an entire system that supports it to be of
any use. Somehow I think having a standard install tool would be easier
to pull through.
As much as I happen to be enjoying this conversation, it’s probably time
to take it off the mailing list, everyone.
If you really want to run in an ‘exotic patch’, dont install.
What do you mean by “dont” install?
I think he meant “exotic path”?
No, I really did type “exotic patch”. Probably not the best choice of
words, but “environment” is a tech term too. Anyway, the important word
was “exotic”: running with game-supplied libraries instead of the
system-supplied ones.
And by “don’t install”, I think he means
"run the app from some subdirectory," e.g., user can run it out of
’/home/username/gamename/’ rather than having to install it to /usr…
Exactly. On Windows you see each and every installer replace system exes
and dlls. . I agree that “out-of-the-box installation by Joe
Sixpack” is a very desirable goal; but it should not be achieved by
compromising security.
Greetings,> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 03:03:49PM +0100, Gabriele Greco wrote:
Michel Bardiaux
R&D Director
T +32 [0] 2 790 29 41
F +32 [0] 2 790 29 02
E mailto:@Michel_Bardiaux
No, I really did type “exotic patch”. Probably not the best choice of
words, but “environment” is a tech term too. Anyway, the important word
was “exotic”: running with game-supplied libraries instead of the
system-supplied ones.
This isn’t what I’d call exotic, it’s actually quite necessary as I
found out with Airline Tycoon and Northland - you CANNOT guarantee the
user’s machine will have a working SDL, SDL_mixer etc… and simply
telling them to install those is a nightmare (especially when distro’s
package broken ones!)
Likewise, you cannot guarantee the user’s system will have the right
versions of crucial things like libstdc++. Look at the old Loki
titles, they needed updates just to be compatible with newer libc.
Again, simply telling the user to have the right version of such libs
on their machine is impossible.
Exactly. On Windows you see each and every installer replace system exes
and dlls. .
Not these days, especially not for games - DLL’s are normally inside
the program’s folder only. The only global component that typically
gets updated by a game installing, is DirectX.–
Best regards,
Peter mailto:@Peter_Mulholland
No, I really did type “exotic patch”. Probably not the best choice of
words, but “environment” is a tech term too. Anyway, the important word
was “exotic”: running with game-supplied libraries instead of the
system-supplied ones.
This isn’t what I’d call exotic, it’s actually quite necessary as I
found out with Airline Tycoon and Northland - you CANNOT guarantee the
user’s machine will have a working SDL, SDL_mixer etc… and simply
telling them to install those is a nightmare (especially when distro’s
package broken ones!)
Likewise, you cannot guarantee the user’s system will have the right
versions of crucial things like libstdc++. Look at the old Loki
titles, they needed updates just to be compatible with newer libc.
Again, simply telling the user to have the right version of such libs
on their machine is impossible.
I maintain that using non-system libs is “exotic”. I dont imply
"unnecessary evil". If “necessary” for the game, nevertheless I dont
want them in my system directories. And if I understand you correctly,
we agree on that.
Exactly. On Windows you see each and every installer replace system exes
and dlls. .
Not these days, especially not for games - DLL’s are normally inside
the program’s folder only.
That works fine on Windows because of the rule “place of exe is the
first place where to look for dlls”. Unix (proper) and Linux have
steadfastly refused that rule; whether or not they were right is very
much debatable. There are workarounds such as LD_LIBRARY_PATH but the
fact it is inherited poses other problems.
The only global component that typically
gets updated by a game installing, is DirectX.
A major security issue.
Greetings,–
Michel Bardiaux
R&D Director
T +32 [0] 2 790 29 41
F +32 [0] 2 790 29 02
E mailto:@Michel_Bardiaux
Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 10:07:06 AM, you wrote:
I maintain that using non-system libs is “exotic”. I dont imply
"unnecessary evil". If “necessary” for the game, nevertheless I dont
want them in my system directories. And if I understand you correctly,
we agree on that.
Indeed.
That works fine on Windows because of the rule “place of exe is the
first place where to look for dlls”. Unix (proper) and Linux have
steadfastly refused that rule; whether or not they were right is very
much debatable. There are workarounds such as LD_LIBRARY_PATH but the
fact it is inherited poses other problems.
That’s what -rpath is for. rpath’s are tried first, I believe.
A major security issue.
How? The DirectX setup executable is VeriSigned, if you’re really that
paranoid.–
Best regards,
Peter mailto:@Peter_Mulholland
Indeed. If anyone wants to discuss this further (I know I do), or maybe
even try to get something done (although this isn’t a good time for me to
start a new project…), e-mail me (off-list, obviously). If there’s any
interest we can set up a mailinglist or something.
~ GerryOn Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:20:43 +0100, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
As much as I happen to be enjoying this conversation, it’s probably time
to take it off the mailing list, everyone.