BerryBots pre-release testing help
This thread is pretty out of date - which version was it you tried? I've got some Ubuntu binaries for v1.3.0 on the downloads page which might work better for you. [1]
If not, there are compilation instructions on the wiki, and I'd be happy to figure out building a Debian binary and adding it for the latest version. It's not hard to compile, but then I've also done it a zillion times. :-)
I'm not exactly an expert on packaging Linux apps, so feedback is more than welcome. Probably the model I trust most is that Chrome releases:
- 32 bit .deb (For Debian/Ubuntu)
- 64 bit .deb (For Debian/Ubuntu)
- 32 bit .rpm (For Fedora/openSUSE)
- 64 bit .rpm (For Fedora/openSUSE)
But so far it's just a simple binary in a zip.
I tried the old version BerryBots for Ubuntu/Mint 32-bit v1.1.0-rc1
if I download berrybots_ubuntu-32bit_1.3.0.tar.gz than for debian I now miss libGLEW.so.1.8.
The debian stable has libGLEW.so.1.7
Quick attempt to compile it myself from the source failed, since I did not installed a lot of prerequisites.
Why one would need cmake, if compilation is designed for make?
Building SFML requires cmake. Those instructions build everything from source.
I'll install Debian "wheezy" 32-bit here and put together a binary for you, and then move "better packaging on Linux" way up on my to-do list. It's hard enough getting someone to install anything at all when so much stuff happens through a browser these days, so getting this right is pretty important...
Alright, getting Debian 32-bit installed now, but I need to get to bed. So probably won't have it posted until sometime tomorrow night, if you're still interested. Then I'll see about packaging as .deb and .rpm as a hopefully better solution.
This one worked without a hitch.
Seeing replay in a browser is super cool, but a bit unexpected :)
I use to make a few debian packages for my own needs. It is not too complicated, especially if you are not to worried about 100% complaint to the distribution policy. But it should be fine for non official packages.
If you can do debian that mean that ubuntu is done as well.
I feel silly to ask but how to see updates and replies to the messages? I used the recent changes page but this seems to be an overkill and not very convenient.
Whew, glad to hear it! Good point about the HTML replays surprising you, which is not a good UI trait. I'll figure out a way to indicate that somehow.
I started working on the .deb packaging earlier. So far doesn't seem too scary...
About wiki messages, the main thing I use is you can "watch" pages and threads and get an email when they're updated. Thread updates even include the whole text, and page updates have a link to the diff. There's also "new messages" along the top, which I think is stuff you watch plus thread replies, but I almost never use it so I'm not sure. And yeah, I also check Recent Changes.
FYI I've made a lot of progress towards a .deb package. Revamped the build process with autoconf/configure along the way. Right now there's still binary incompatibility because Debian has libglew17 and Ubuntu libglew18. But at worst, I'll be able to offer .deb's instead of .zip's, it's no worse in terms of binary incompatibility, better installation process, run from anywhere and data's stored in your chosen location (like on Mac), and I can see about submitting the source package to the Debian repo so you can eventually get the binary you need in whatever distro.
And hopefully wxWidgets 2.9 and SFML 2 will hit Debian stable eventually and make my life a little easier...
Also someone came along and packaged it for the Arch Linux repository, which was a nice surprise. His first pass is semi-broken because it was before I did all this other necessary stuff to make it work smoothly running from an installed location, but he has my latest code and I think will update it sometime.
Yep, it is a pain when libraries are not in the main distro.
But may be there is no reason to push so hard. You already have good enough binary zip which runs by itself, so anyone interested can run it on Debian with no problem. The only thing to do maybe, is to come up with a list of packages required to run it. As I reported it runs fine for me, but may be I have big enough collection of library packages. Debian has some script which runs through binary and report its dependencies, it is run from inside of deb-maker scripts so I cannot say which one exactly.
Also, if you do deb packages just because of my request. Please, do not fill obligated. For the next couple month I will be busy trying to reach something in robocode. And I cannot handle one more addictive game :)
Though, I will be happy to test installation of berrybots packages.
Haha, well, real packaging on Linux was already a to-do, but having actual people show some interest has a way of helping prioritize things. :-) And I can pay my Apple tax (er, developer license) to get rid of a scary warning there, maybe write an installer for Windows too, and I've got a nice "easier to build or install / run" story for the next version.
I've tested the .zip on a fresh install of Ubuntu, so I don't think there's anything major that I'm unknowingly depending on. I think I tried the Debian binary on a fresh install too.
If you're interested, here's a Debian 32-bit .deb: [1].
Got both .deb and .rpm packages working now. Never thought I'd be so happy to see my icon in the Linux Applications menu. :-)
