Source??

[Noyga]

Usually under linux you don't need that stuff.
It's easier to launch your package manager then update (most distributions already know Wesnoth).
To me it's even more simple than under Windows.

[Lacotemale]

Forget everything I said, its fine the way it is. I have read the whole manual on how to create an autopackage but I still havent much of a clue how. They give no full examples.... just have a debian download available.

By the way who creates the .deb installers for ye?

[shevegen]

in case you haven't noticed I am trying to make things easier for people new to Linux.

That is a noble ambition. Unfortunately, many distributions cripple the default installation. With harddiscs of 80 Gigs and more these days being the DEFAULT, I will never understand why they omit basic header files for the majority of users these day ("desktop OS"), dont ship compiler tools (most dont out of the box. Take ubuntu for example), and stick to the FHS (whereas one package / directory install is a LOT easier AND cleaner, without being forced to use a package manager to survive in the mess of removing packages again before "upgrading" to catch "stray files" or conflicting programs. Compiling glibc is no fun!).

It may make sense for slick server installs or embedded system with low resources (but even than, i rather have everything contained in one dir and then let a script run to strip off whats unneeded)

Getting these things installed can be quite difficult for a new user too. You are right. BUT if all the requirements are available on his machine, then compiling it is a trivial task!
./configure --prefix=/wesnoth --enable-editor
should be enough!

Autopackage is a nice approach but it does not go far enough, and every distribution "solves" things their own way ...

Anyway, if you compile from source, just use paco from sourceforge to drop binaries. If you have the same architecture (i mean 32 bit) and ~glibc it *should* even work for other guys too. You might try to provide these "universal" binaries for users to try out too by the way. But compiling from source is really straight forward. Except if you use a crap distribution

[Lacotemale]

You might try to provide these "universal" binaries for users to try out too by the way. But compiling from source is really straight forward. Except if you use a crap distribution

I am trying to make a .package binary but the manual is 44 pages long and there is no full example, its all just bits and pieces of each stage.

In order to make progress I would have to make some notes from this oversized manual. I don't really have the knowledge or time for it but I will try again to make some progress.

The autopackage people should have made some easy development tools (by easy I mean with a graphical interface) and a much smaller manual... then I might actually be making some progress.

What is a crap distribution?

[kav]

Several years ago, before wesnoth was even 1.0, I was new to linux. I had just installed the first release of ubuntu that day and was looking for games. Being the noob that I was I didn't even know that ubuntu had a package manager. I found wesnoth on some games listing website and found the homepage. I downloaded the source, followed the instructions to the letter to get all the pre-requ's and compiled wesnoth.

In conclusion, wesnoth and it's prerequisites were the first pieces of software I ever compiled, and I did so on the same day I first installed linux when I was an ultra-noob and an open source ignoramus. Compiling software from source is not hard for people that have the ability to read.

[Iris]

The same applied to me. Even though I started learning Linux the hard way (my first distribution was SUSE 9.3).

[Myr]

You might try to provide these "universal" binaries for users to try out too by the way. But compiling from source is really straight forward. Except if you use a crap distribution

I am trying to make a .package binary but the manual is 44 pages long and there is no full example, its all just bits and pieces of each stage.

In order to make progress I would have to make some notes from this oversized manual. I don't really have the knowledge or time for it but I will try again to make some progress.

The autopackage people should have made some easy development tools (by easy I mean with a graphical interface) and a much smaller manual... then I might actually be making some progress.

What is a crap distribution?

Wesnoth should blah blah, Autopackage should blah blah, all this is too hard.

Seems you just want an easy way out. It does exist, http://microsoft.com

Linux is not Windows, it will do its thing its own way, I personally like having a package manager instead of exe installers, and compilling from source is sometimes better, you get what you want.

A noteable example, I think it was 1.0 that had libzipios in it by default (I'm not even sure if Wesnoth has it at all, or even by default now, I always compile it myself). I had an old computer I was messing with, had installed I believe Ubuntu, and when I installed Wesnoth from the reps. It ran horrible. It was incredibly slow. I researched some issues, and came across a post on this forum saying to compile without the libzipios support. I did, and Wesnoth ran MUCH faster. Since, I've compiled from source for every Wesnoth version. I refuse to use a prepackaged Wesnoth.

[Iris]

there's a nice easy way to convert .rpm in to .deb, isn't there? something called alien? Works somewhat well, doesn't it? Granted, I haven't used it, but I've heard good things about it...

Me too, and I think it's pretty much the solution for these guys.

I'd consider this thread soft-locked if I had the authority to do that. Oh well, just stop this flamebait and get back to talk about providing an autopackage for cluel... newbie Linux users/distros. I think any other reply to the flamebait would deserve a lock.

I wonder why you people insist.

[Lacotemale]

Lets just forget I said anything, I think things are ok the way they are.