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

Benoît Minisini gambas at ...1...
Tue Nov 25 23:25:19 CET 2014


Le 25/11/2014 17:55, T Lee Davidson a écrit :
> 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.
>

Binary packages must be made for all distributions, and some 
distributions are not well supported, or not supported at all.

The Gambas Farm allows to install any Gambas program in one click 
whatever your Linux system is. And you have to upload only one package.

>
>>> - 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?

The later.

>
>
>>> - 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.
>

See my answer in Bruen's mail.

>
> 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.
>

Please elaborate.

Regards,

-- 
Benoît Minisini




More information about the User mailing list