[Gambas-user] A suggestion for simplifying the distribution of Gambas apps

[Benoit Minisini]

On Wednesday 13 September 2006 18:04, Bob Warren wrote:
> Dear Benoit and colleagues:
>
> First of all, congratulations on producing what promises to be a
> wonderful product. I hope that Gambas really catches on throughout the
> programming community as it deserves.
>
> The version of Gambas I am using is 1.0.13 available with Ubuntu. I have
> no intention of using anything other than whatever version of Gambas is
> easily installable. It is a pity that for some reason Ubuntu is not
> offering the latest stable version.
>

I know.

> In version 1.0.13, I can make an executable object program, but attempts
> to make a (Debian) packaged version fail. Perhaps this has been fixed in
> later versions, I don't know.
>
> As far as I can see, the executable I can successfully produce is more
> or less like a Windows executable, i.e. it depends on pre-installed
> libraries in the operating system. This always was a pain in the arse in
> Windows, and continues to be so in Linux and Gambas it seems. However,
> if I want my users to run my executable programs with no hassle, one
> easy way is to ask them to install Gambas itself first (which is very
> quick and automatic in Ubuntu) to get the runtimes into the system.
> Thereafter, the executables should run with no trouble***. Not perfectly
> straightforward, but no more trouble really than doing a conventional
> Windows-style setup.
>
> [*** Not entirely true. If I change the name of the executable file -
> e.g. from "myprog.exe" to "my_new_prog" - it doesn't run anymore, even
> though it maintains its supposedly 'executable' permission status.]


Hmmm. It should work. Maybe this is a bug.

>
>
> Regarding the packaging option in Gambas, it seems to me that this
> option is a little too ambitious considering the numbers of different
> Linuxes out there and the rate at which they change. 

I agree. But I had to try!

> The packaging 
> wizard even tries to take a pre-established desktop menu system into
> account for example. I don't know too much about the technical
> considerations, but it seems to me that such things put Gambas on a
> slippery slope from the very outset, and perhaps this is one reason why
> it fails in Ubuntu with version 1.0.13.

The menu organization seems to standardize (slowly, we are on Linux). Anyway, 
I think I will use the Portland scripts that allows to install menu shortcuts 
in an distribution & desktop independant way.

>
> Since I do not have the patience or technical competence for compiling
> programs, sorting out dependency hells, reverting to Linux's version of
> DOS and so on, I dream of a simpler solution to the potential
> distribution of programs I may produce in Gambas in the future: the
> STANDALONE.
>
> A single standalone executable program can be run from any part of the
> file system, including the desktop in most cases, and has all that it
> needs bundled with it for that particular Linux distro. You don't get a
> nice menu item inserted for you automatically, but in compensation you
> have a system which is much quicker, simpler, and more reliable. How
> about introducing the STANDALONE EXECUTABLE into Gambas?
>
> Best regards to all,
> Bob Warren
>

The two big problems with standalone executables are:

1) Complexity: you don't have to compile statically, but you have to make a 
package that includes all needed libraries, a bit like what klik does.

2) Security: as the program uses its own libraries, security updates change 
nothing for them. This is a huge problem, and because of that, I am against 
standalone executables.

I think the real solution is having a standard way of installing menu 
shortcuts and a standard way of making packages.

In Gambas 2, the packager will be rewritten, and I hope it will allow making 
RPMs, DEBs and Slackware packages correctly.

Regards,

-- 
Benoit Minisini