LÖVE

slime wrote:io.popen isn't supported in the version of Lua distributed with the OS X version of LÖVE 0.8.0. 0.9.0 will have a fixed version of Lua which has a functional io.popen.

Great, thanks!

About Linux distribution, you really need to build a .deb and/or a .rpm and let them handle the dependencies, number of bits etc.

As I understand the sitauation:

• Mac users expect a single .app file,
• Linux users expect .deb, .rpm, or .tar.gz with instructions on installation (install) or an istall script (install.sh),
• And I think Windows users expect a .zip maybe, or they might be OK with an .exe and a bunch of .dlls.

Windows users expect a zip full of the .exe and dll's.
Mac users expect a zip containing a .app (because apps are actually just folders with the .app at the end of them)

qaisjp wrote:Windows users expect a zip full of the .exe and dll's.
Mac users expect a zip containing a .app (because apps are actually just folders with the .app at the end of them)

Okay!

I'm thinking about the following:

• LÖVE officially ships with 32 and 64 bit versions for Windows,
• 32 and 64 bit versions for Ubuntu (10.10 ... 12.04),
• Universal build for MacOSX,
• and everyone can buid it from source.

To keep it simple, I've figured out to use this directory structure:

• Create a generic folder if architecture is unknown, for example: Linux, MacOSX, Windows,
• Add '-' and the architecture if it was detected successfully, e.g. Linux-i686, Windows-AMD64.

On Linux, the best way I've found to determine if the host OS uses .deb or .rpm is to actually test which type of package manager is present: dpkg or rpm.

I also think having two versions (.love and .zip) of LDT is confusing, so I'll only post the .love versions here in the future.

See the LÖVE distribution website thread. It's two years old and development has stalled, but we talked about all the finicky details and how and what already.

easy82 wrote: I'm thinking about the following:

• LÖVE officially ships with 32 and 64 bit versions for Windows,
[b]
• 32 and 64 bit versions for Ubuntu (10.10 ... 12.04),
[/b]
• Universal build for MacOSX,
[b]
• and everyone can buid it from source.
[/b]

May I suggest instead of providing binaries, provide .deb and .rpm, and anyone who can't run those, should build from source (e.g. install love and run the .love file).

As Robin mentioned, there was a lot of talk. The community would love a workflow to distribute .deb and .rpm files easily for linux.

Robin wrote:See the LÖVE distribution website thread. It's two years old and development has stalled, but we talked about all the finicky details and how and what already.

Wow, I thought I've gone through all the related threads and tools, but I haven't seen this one! Definately a must read for me, thanks!

josefnpat wrote:

easy82 wrote: I'm thinking about the following:

• LÖVE officially ships with 32 and 64 bit versions for Windows,
[b]
• 32 and 64 bit versions for Ubuntu (10.10 ... 12.04),
[/b]
• Universal build for MacOSX,
[b]
• and everyone can buid it from source.
[/b]

May I suggest instead of providing binaries, provide .deb and .rpm, and anyone who can't run those, should build from source (e.g. install love and run the .love file).

As Robin mentioned, there was a lot of talk. The community would love a workflow to distribute .deb and .rpm files easily for linux.

To my understanding .deb and .rpm files are archives that contains binaries, installation instructions, etc. for the package manager.


Also, updated first page, a bugfix version is out with minor changes:

• * Added WinRAR to archivers on Windows
  * Workaround for Mac: io:popen doesn't work in Love 0.8.0 (will be fixed in 0.9.0)
  * Checking '/Applications' before '/home' because OSX also have '/home'
  * Simplified detecting processor architecture
  * Updated instructions to use only distribute.love version

easy82 wrote: On Linux, the best way I've found to determine if the host OS uses .deb or .rpm is to actually test which type of package manager is present: dpkg or rpm.

I've got dpkg on my non-deb system, and I've had rpm on a deb system in the past (in addition to dpkg).

bartbes wrote:

easy82 wrote: On Linux, the best way I've found to determine if the host OS uses .deb or .rpm is to actually test which type of package manager is present: dpkg or rpm.

I've got dpkg on my non-deb system, and I've had rpm on a deb system in the past (in addition to dpkg).

I see your point, though I don't think this would be very mainstream. I think it should default to .deb. There are other ways to find out weather an .rpm or a .deb should be build, but not as simple as this previous one. When I add command line parameters and/or GUI to LDT there could be some build options, so you could choose.

Robin wrote:See the LÖVE distribution website thread. It's two years old and development has stalled, but we talked about all the finicky details and how and what already.

I've run through it, but I haven't really seen anything I could use. Maybe I've missed something important?