Thread: Sigil v0.1.2
View Single Post
Old 08-15-2009, 01:25 AM   #42
roger64
Wizard
roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.roger64 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,424
Karma: 846401
Join Date: Jan 2009
Device: KoboGlo
Smile

You decide. You are the -final- author and boss.

For the sake of objectivity and for the information of our readers, I need to correct a misconception about the technical value of checkinstall built deb packages stemming from our previous posts. This will be my last shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valloric View Post
.../...
And checkinstall is not meant to be used to produce packages that are to be installed on computers other than the one used to make the package. The deb and rpm packages you normally install from your distribution's package repository are created with a lot more care and precision. It is not an easy or simple process by any means. For more information on creating distributable debs, take a look here. Just creating debs alone is rather complicated. Rpms AFAIK have their own complex procedures.
.../...
To write that "checkinstall is not meant to be used to produce packages that are to be installed on computers other than the one used to make the package" is a misconception.

The situation is just not so one-sided as you wrote it. I explain this:

First, let's put aside please the trust and security reasons. This is another and different question. A most important one, for sure, but another one. Let's speak only here about the technical value of a package made with checkinstall.

Checkinstall can technically be trusted, even for distribution purposes. It's part of the Ubuntu communautary documentation. Look here: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CheckInstall which speaks of "allowing for easy package removal or distribution".
It has indeed some limitations,
- 32bits or 64 bits version
- same version of same distribution specially when there are dependencies
- same architecture (i386 or Sparc,...) written in the deb package.
If available, I agree that an official package is to be preferred
- available for several architectures
- respect for specific distribution rules (recommended paths, icon menus, patches...)

So, for the above-mentioned reasons, the checkinstall built deb package I sent you can technically be trusted and it will successfully and safely run on all 32 bits i386 computers using Ubuntu jaunty and not only on my computer where it has been compiled and built.

It's somewhat more limited than what I wrote before and I apologize for this, but it's still significant and of much wider use than what you wrote. So, all done for the double misconception I wanted to correct.

To conclude, you wrote that to compile your program is trivial. Well, to create a working deb package with checkinstall including the needed dependencies is just as trivial. It's, to use your own words, “as simple as” replacing :
sudo make install
by
sudo checkinstall -D --requires="libqt4-gui,libqt4-svg,libqt4-webkit,libqt4-xml”
Note: for black magic reasons, no whitespace between package names, only comas.

This was my best shot too. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to understand better checkinstall and for having taken the time to reply.

Your random servant.

P.S. Zelda. Still OK like this? Nobody to be hurt?

Last edited by roger64; 08-16-2009 at 03:28 AM.
roger64 is offline   Reply With Quote