Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Programming & Networking => Topic started by: choasforages on 1 August 2002, 14:27
-
ok, i just though of a kickass program for newbies. for installing things from source. ok here is what it would do. gunzip /untar a tarball. read the autoconf info. and present the user with the ./configure options and then let the user select the options with a gui instead of
./configure --shit --shitty=redhats_gcc
but i can barly even peck out a decent hello world prog in an shell script, i can make cool c++ progs that don't do anything. i can't even use gtk yet/*doh*/ so does anyone want to help me learn enough to do this, or just make it yourselfs. or has somebody already made this
-
I think that would be a really good idea, because one of the things that scares people the most about linux is compiling programs. Most people are just use to clicking something and the install program does it all for you.
-
yes i know, i though about it when i was building ChoasNETOS for my own enjoyment. if it were only easyer to do this maybe n00bs would be more inclinded. but i am not good enough to write this shit though
-
It would be MUCH easier and beneficial if you just created an RPM and an SRPM out of the packages in question, assuming that the RPM doesn't already exist. That would be far easier for n00bs.
-
I think writing it in SDL would be pretty easy. Maybe I'll try... =\
-
SDL? for this? Now I like SDL, but you my friend, are crazy ;)
use Qt (http://www.trolltech.com) instead
if I ever get a vacation I might be persuaded to write a little tool which does this ....
[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: BadKarma ]
[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: BadKarma ]
-
I like SDL :-p
And if I'm doing anything tat has to do with graphics, it's going to be SDL!
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk:
I like SDL :-p
And if I'm doing anything tat has to do with graphics, it's going to be SDL!
I like SDL too (better yet ... I love it) however it is totally not suited for general GUI programs. It's a very low level toolkit, originally created for games, so in this case Qt would be a faaar better choice.
-
Well I want to write it in SDL! Bite me!
-
Ok ... then you'll have to manually parse the autoconf file, while I just use a QProcess to run it, grab the output and use a QRegExp to grab all the options ....
have fun I say.....
:D
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
It would be MUCH easier and beneficial if you just created an RPM and an SRPM out of the packages in question, assuming that the RPM doesn't already exist. That would be far easier for n00bs.
Yeah Void, but it would be nice to be able to easily pick specific options for n00bs and compile a program from source, tailor made for their wishes and system.
-
well, why don't you both write a different version, and whichever version is better.....
wouldn't it be better to seperate the ass end from the front end. like maybe have different interfaces like written in gtk+1.2 gtk+2.0 qt-2 qt-3, ncurses, and such and just have a lib to handle grabbing the options/*then agian that would be more complex, but better in the end for everyone*/
anohter thing, the prog would have to chop out common autoconf options and leave that for "expert" mode
-
quote:
Originally posted by BadKarma:
Yeah Void, but it would be nice to be able to easily pick specific options for n00bs and compile a program from source, tailor made for their wishes and system.
I guess it would be a good learning project if nothing else. Heck, I'm happy if the source package is even incorporates configure. Is it too early to ask if you can also make your program spit out an RPM and SRPM, along with the Debian package? (http://smile.gif)
-
well, i think the quirk is working on getting it to be demoable like to show people that we have something that works now i was thinking about regerstering it on sourceforge, there are obvios benifits to doing it that way right??? or is it just a pain in the ass. as for debian and rpm's, that might be an option, however since it is most likely going to be open source, you could always add that feature. besides, i can't really code good enough to do anything usefull, i just think of good ideas that could benifit the linux/open source comunity. and making it easy for n00bs to compile from source, and using terminoligy like installing a program normally, i think that would be a great plus. hell, the guys behind rpm probably didn't think that they were inventing a standerd, or maybe they did. as for licensing, i guess if the quirk is writing the basics like he said he was, it would probably be up to him to decide the licence. i was leaning more toward the lgpl myself. so people could use it like a library or something like that
-
I would put it under GPL and not LGPL if I were you. That would require any program that used it to also be GPL. And by all means, if your program looks like it will be useful put it on sourceforge.
[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
If I were to write this program and I would use Qt the license would have to be GPL seeing as I don't have a commercial Qt license (well, not for myself at least)
-
well, its all just conceptual right know, but i like the lgpl more then the gpl. i know its not the license of the purist but then agian, i was thinking that it should be seperated at the frontend/backend level, meaning that a library would have to be written, and what if a company wanted to use it for a project that wasn't opensource. it is tempting to put it under the bsd license, but i like the terms of the lgpl, becuase it avoids several problems like what happen with nusphere a few months ago i think
-
err.. maybe that should be discussed when I atleast partially finish it?
-
quote:
i like the terms of the lgpl, becuase it avoids several problems like what happen with nusphere a few months ago i think
How was that a problem?
-
It'll use Qt, and it'l be under the GPL. It's not going to be a library, but a stand alone applicaiton.
-
Ya know yer going to have to pump out an curses/ncurses version as well don't you? (http://smile.gif)
-
well, make it thou selve, i just think of this shit.
-
the only problem i can see is that the newbs wont be able to install it without a graphical interface in the first place!
-
I'll just include in the readme "For installation instructions, go to forum.fuckmicrosoft.com" :D (http://tongue.gif) :rolleyes:
-
quote:
Originally posted by choasforages:
well, make it thou selve, i just think of this shit.
Naaa, I have no need for such a utility...
-
quote:
Originally posted by sporkme / bob:
the only problem i can see is that the newbs wont be able to install it without a graphical interface in the first place!
That's where distro's and friends are for.
OK, maybe they'll have problems with this, but installing *one* program by source/RPM and the rest by gui is easier than installing lots of 'em.
Anyway, 'bout the ./configure options: those are far from always the same, and the help provided with the files is usually quite arcane (that's the original problem). How do you present those in an orderly fashion if you can't even get a decent list?. Unless you're manually adding them to every packet available - if you do that I will praise you untill eternity (or untill you're finished - but that's the same).
-
quote:
Originally posted by DC:
That's where distro's and friends are for.
OK, maybe they'll have problems with this, but installing *one* program by source/RPM and the rest by gui is easier than installing lots of 'em.
Anyway, 'bout the ./configure options: those are far from always the same, and the help provided with the files is usually quite arcane (that's the original problem). How do you present those in an orderly fashion if you can't even get a decent list?. Unless you're manually adding them to every packet available - if you do that I will praise you untill eternity (or untill you're finished - but that's the same).
seeing the configure script is automatically generated, the options are presented in a (reasonably) coherent way, which means they are parsable by a regular expression, and to me it seems possible to isolate the configure options (I'll have a look at this maybe next weekend)
-
the simpler solution would be to make the packages more installable, not the installer more complicated.
personally once i did it a coupla times it became easier than clicking. one step. type it and it is (likely to be) right.
-
i don't know, i just thought it up. im currently thinking of another cool idea that someone should do. www.nostatic.org/groove (http://www.nostatic.org/groove) looks pretty sweet from the screen shots.