[Gambas-user] Debian packages for gambas 1.9.45

[Benoit Minisini]

On Sunday 29 October 2006 22:50, José Luis Redrejo wrote:
> 2006/10/29, Benoit Minisini <gambas at ...1...>:
> > On Sunday 29 October 2006 17:15, Jos? Luis Redrejo wrote:
> > > As usual the Debian packages for version 1.9.45 are tested and ready.
> > > To get them in a Debian based distribution, the procedure is described
> > > at http://gambas.sourceforge.net/download.html in the Debian Section.
> > >
> > > These packages have been compiled to be used in Debian sid. If a
> > > Debian Sarge (as LinEx) is used, you have to replace the "sid" word by
> > > "sarge".
> > >
> > > Maybe Ubuntu users are lucky, and this time their distro "tricks" will
> > > let them use the packages. Otherwise, they can compile it in the
> > > debian way using the debianized sources availables at
> > > http://apt.linex.org/linex/gambas/1.9.45/sid/ (if they don't like to
> > > compile they also can switch to use a real Debian based distribution
> > > instead of that fork)
> > >
> > > Cheers.
> >
> > Can you explain why do you patch the original sources?
> >
> > 1) You removed the compilation of examples at installation. Not dramatic,
> > but
> > why?
>
> Because Debian follows FHS for the file system (
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), and no executable files
> should be placed at /usr/share/.....   So I left there the examples with
> their code to be checked, used, studied, etc by gambas users, but not
> compiling them to fullfil the
>
> 2) You replaced 'gbr' by 'gbx' in the interpreter and compiler source code!
>
> > This is problematic: it breaks the interpreter behaviour, and it prevents
> > Gambas program made outside of Debian from working on Debian.
> >
> > Not a good idea IMHO...
>
> Maybe you're right, but I had to think of keeping compatibility between
> previous gambas compilations made in Debian, and  programs compiled outside
> of Debian to work on Debian. I think the last case is really strange, as
> when applications are moved from a distribution to another they are usually
> recompiled. But, when the runtime interpreter changed its name there were
> already a bunch of applications running in Debian that would fail. In fact,
> I'm not sure what the best solution would be for this name changing. Anyway
> the problem (if there were any) is easily fixed with a symbolic link
> between gbx2/gbr2.
> Obviously, consider this an open issue, and if you can convince me that
> changing to gbr2 is the best option, I'll do it.
>
> Cheers.
> José L.

gbr2 is already a symbolic link to gbx2. This is the way for avoiding having a 
symbolic link in /usr/bin to run gambas archives, do you remember? 

I replaced '#!/usr/bin/gbx2 -x' by '#!/usr/bin/env gbr2'.

As '#!' syntax can only deal with one argument, I made a symbolic link 'gbr2' 
that points at 'gbx2'. This way, gbx2 knows that it should run as if '-x' was 
passed as argument.

And the aim of gambas executables is being system-agnostic, so you don't have 
to recompile them when changing the O.S. I'm not sure that this will be true 
when gambas will be ported on 64 bits.

I hope I convinced you, because I am almost sure that what you did prevents 
programs from being debugged in the IDE, because gbx2 cannot know anymore if 
it must run a project directory or a compiled archive.

Regards,

-- 
Benoit Minisini