Debian Experimental Packages

Anything related to PR, release planning and any other non-technical idea how to move the project forward should be discussed here.
User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4255
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Github profile: https://github.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: Debian "PPA"

Post by psi29a » 29 Jan 2013, 13:59

They are doing good work. They started using one of my heightmaps as a base and moulded it to their liking and made an esm out of it. Now they are busy with the other bits.

freem
Posts: 35
Joined: 20 Mar 2012, 16:22

Re: Debian "PPA"

Post by freem » 08 Feb 2013, 17:32

BrotherBrick wrote:
freem wrote: 2) openmw's engine is not a non-free software for debian. It should be in contrib, as its only real dependency outside "main" is the nvidia toolkit. If it was removed, and I think it can be set as "recommended" (not sure), it could be in "main". The only thing which should be in contrib would be a script to detect Elder Scroll 3 's data, which is a non-free stuff. I think I have read about people wanting to build total conversion, and I have also read somewhere here that people were planning to create a demo, so removing that nvidia dependency could allow to send openmw in the "main" section.
No true, openmw is no longer dependant on nvidia-cg-toolkit, if you have it, great if not, not a problem thanks to shiny. In all honesty, nvidia-cg-toolkit can go take a hike (no longer supported).
I was simply unsure about that particular dependency. Anyway, it should not be in non-free, that was my real message ;)
BrotherBrick wrote:
freem wrote: 4) it could be interesting to create a deb which create a file in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ containing the line to add in sources.list. I know that trick thanks to opera. I could create such deb file manually if needed, it only takes 5 minutes. But I have no idea about signing stuff, so I can not do that part of the job.
and as related to point 1), maqifrnswa is scott howard who is a member of debian (and through debian, Ubuntu) and is pushing to make sure that openmw and it's dependencies go into the right repos, the end result is not having more apt sources. The repos he made available are only temporary. The only real show stopper is mygui which doesn't exist at all at the moment, but we are working on that, the rest are in staging for after Wheezy's release.
Very nice to hear!
BrotherBrick wrote:
freem wrote: 4) it could be interesting to create a deb which create a file in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ containing the line to add in sources.list. I know that trick thanks to opera. I could create such deb file manually if needed, it only takes 5 minutes. But I have no idea about signing stuff, so I can not do that part of the job.
and as related to point 1), maqifrnswa is scott howard who is a member of debian (and through debian, Ubuntu) and is pushing to make sure that openmw and it's dependencies go into the right repos, the end result is not having more apt sources. The repos he made available are only temporary. The only real show stopper is mygui which doesn't exist at all at the moment, but we are working on that, the rest are in staging for after Wheezy's release.
mygui is now pending too. The problem is that mygui won't link with libogre 1.8 for a little while longer (i.e. after Wheezy, at least).
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=578690[/quote]

openmw can anyway not go into future stable, since Debian is frozen. At the moment, new packages can only go into experimental. Hopefully the new stable will come fast, and stop the freeze for testing.

BrotherBrick wrote:They are doing good work. They started using one of my heightmaps as a base and moulded it to their liking and made an esm out of it. Now they are busy with the other bits.
I Can not wait for it :)

freem
Posts: 35
Joined: 20 Mar 2012, 16:22

Re: Debian "PPA"

Post by freem » 18 Feb 2013, 22:23

The repository now only have 0.21 for i386. Is it a normal behavior, or is there is a problem?

User avatar
pvdk
Posts: 523
Joined: 12 Aug 2011, 16:34

Re: Debian "PPA"

Post by pvdk » 19 Feb 2013, 01:30

freem wrote:3) openmw-launcher binary have a weird name: omwlauncher. Since I run my applications from terminals or dmenu, renaming it might be a good idea. Not for me, but for other people doing things in the same way than me.
Yeah I can see why that would be a good idea. Let's ask Zini for his blessing.

Question: Would game data packager be of any use to us, if we add a Morrowind entry and have it to uncab the Morrowind installation files from cd or something?

maqifrnswa
Posts: 180
Joined: 14 Jan 2013, 03:57

Re: Debian "PPA"

Post by maqifrnswa » 19 Feb 2013, 01:52

freem wrote:The repository now only have 0.21 for i386. Is it a normal behavior, or is there is a problem?
It was in the middle of building the amd64 binaries, my amd64 builder is sloooowwwwww. They should all be up now!

maqifrnswa
Posts: 180
Joined: 14 Jan 2013, 03:57

Re: Debian "PPA"

Post by maqifrnswa » 19 Feb 2013, 01:58

pvdk wrote:Question: Would game data packager be of any use to us, if we add a Morrowind entry and have it to uncab the Morrowind installation files from cd or something?
I haven't used it before, but it is a way of automating installation of content from CDs (and makes it easy for users to remove)

Chris
Posts: 1500
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 08:33

Re: Debian "PPA"

Post by Chris » 19 Feb 2013, 02:41

pvdk wrote:Question: Would game data packager be of any use to us, if we add a Morrowind entry and have it to uncab the Morrowind installation files from cd or something?
The main thing will be that the game data needs to be patched after it's extracted from the CD(s). I don't think we should support unpatched game data since it's known to have bugs (not saying we should explicitly disallow it, though maybe we should, but we definitely shouldn't encourage it).

User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5526
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: Debian "PPA"

Post by Zini » 19 Feb 2013, 09:22

Yeah I can see why that would be a good idea. Let's ask Zini for his blessing.
Come up with something better than omwlauncher and we can talk.

freem
Posts: 35
Joined: 20 Mar 2012, 16:22

Re: Debian "PPA"

Post by freem » 19 Feb 2013, 09:57

maqifrnswa wrote:
freem wrote:The repository now only have 0.21 for i386. Is it a normal behavior, or is there is a problem?
It was in the middle of building the amd64 binaries, my amd64 builder is sloooowwwwww. They should all be up now!
My apologies and thanks :)
Zini wrote:
Yeah I can see why that would be a good idea. Let's ask Zini for his blessing.
Come up with something better than omwlauncher and we can talk.
The easier to think about would be "openmw-launcher" : simple and efficient I think.
It is easier to guess than omwlauncher, because the name is the same as the package's one, there is no ambiguity, and since in command-line we have auto-completion, the longer name is not a problem. In fact, IMO, it helps when related softwares have related names.
GUI users do not really mind about the name of the executable, since they use graphical menus, with .desktop files, IIRC.

For people who prefer shorter names, it is also possible to have both: providing a link or a script in the package would do the job. Of course, it is also possible for the user to add a "alias openmw-launcher='omwlauncher'" in .bashrc, but I think it is sad to need to do that.

maqifrnswa
Posts: 180
Joined: 14 Jan 2013, 03:57

Re: Debian Experimental Packages

Post by maqifrnswa » 11 Jan 2014, 22:47

I updated installation instructions to use the Debian experimental packages. The people.debian.org packages won't be updated any more now that it is in experimental. Instructions apply to both Jessie and Wheezy users.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests