[Gambas-user] Gambas Software Farm in revision #6676

[T Lee Davidson]

On 11/25/2014 05:20 AM, B Bruen wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:11:54 +0100
> Benoît Minisini <gambas at ...1...> wrote:
>
>> - Installing is not done.
>
> I still maintain that autotools is the way to go. It is, as far as I know, distro independent and complies with the desire to make the whole menagerie based on "source code visibility".  The installer, apart from the nastiness checking previously posted, could use the existing code in the IDE to create an autotools package and then run the ".reconf;.configure;make;su(do) make install" circus to install it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why do all that? The IDE already has a 
package maker. Why not just let the user make their own application 
package and install from that? Gambas must be installed to run the 
application anyway, right?

Perhaps an option to install the package after its creation could be 
added to the package maker.


>> - In the future, the error message could be replaced by an automatic
>> installation of binary packages depending on the distribution. I need
>> help for that: for each distribution, I need to know how to install a
>> binary package, and if the distribution follows the gambas binary
>> package naming convention.
>
> As mentioned by Kevin, I would eschew binary installs. Too much danger.

Not necessarily. People install binary packages from various 
"unofficial" repositories all the time, like the Daily PPA. I think the 
main issue with installing binary packages is: Is the repository trusted.

That being said, I think that doing binary installs of applications 
published on the Farm just complicates things needlessly. But then there 
are components which I have not worked with. Can they also be made into 
packages via the IDE?

Or are we talking about installing the necessary Gambas components from 
the distribution's repository?


>> - If there are dependencies of other softwares, then a recursive search
>> of all the dependencies is done, and the corresponding software must be
>> installed first.
>
> We have found that too hard. Better a message "Can't install, you need the zyxxy component to be installed first".

That may be what Benoît was saying.


>> - The source package is downloaded, and stored in something like
>> '~/.local/gambas3/farm/<farm server>/'.
>
> Hmmm. Not sure. I have a feeling "~/Downloads" may be more friendly, or a configurable target.

"~/Downloads" is not guaranteed to exist. So, if a hard-coded 
'~/.local/gambas3/farm/<farm server>/' is not acceptable, then a 
configurable target should be allowed. But, in my opinion, 
'~/.local/gambas3/farm/<farm server>/' makes more sense since this *is* 
a Gambas "thing", and "~/Downloads" can get cluttered just like 
"~/Desktop" does.


Now, for those who may wish to use the Farm as a (pseudo-)marketplace. I 
wonder if adding the ability to password-protect an 
application/component listing, like "published" and "private", would be 
worth considering. It would definitely not be ideal, but might be workable.


-- 
Lee
__________

"Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."