Cannot find deb packages for Ubuntu Lucid Lynx

[p3aul]

Deleted

[theducks]

Originally Posted by p3aul

I'm looking for a deb or bin of Sigil for the 64 bit(or if it will run, 32bit) version of Lucid Lynx. All I can find are untrusted websites from individuals that some how have there own repository. Against my better judgement, I have tried to install these. Nothing works. I think the creators of Sigil have done a disservice to Linux users, especially Ubuntu. 64bit. I was running Sigil on 32bit before I decided to upgrade to 64 bit. It worked fine.
Thank you,
Paul

No Linux did a dis-service to developers that were supporting non-technical users. Just too many odd distributions
There is no longer a working Single Linux build for Sigil. You will need to build your own (instructions are on the development site)

[p3aul]

Deleted by poster

[theducks]

Hey P3aul,
I am frustrated as well.
I don't feel competent to do my own 'Makes' unless the instructions are precise.
Which is the problem. the target keeps moving with every distro upgrade and the developers would have to spend time working on the various instructions (over their own platforms build)
For now, I run Sigil on the Windows side of the world.. Even that has problems with tool changes (5.902 won't save the main screen location for full screen on a multi-head system. works OK for reduced size)

[DiapDealer]

The fact is that very few open source, cross-platform projects provide Linux binary builds. I'm surprised Sigil provided them for as long as they did, actually. You should contact the maintainers of your distro's official repositories and voice your displeasure. They're the ones who are really leaving you in the lurch regarding Sigil binary packages.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The fact is that very few open source, cross-platform projects provide Linux binary builds. I'm surprised Sigil provided them for as long as they did, actually. You should contact the maintainers of your distro's official repositories and voice your displeasure. They're the ones who are really leaving you in the lurch regarding Sigil binary packages.

We both use Ubuntu (I use the 32 bit version) which only updates packages like Calibre Once, just before the semi-annual release.
(Calibre is already outdated by the time a distro hits the street). I don't think I have ever seen Sigil in the standard repositories

[DiapDealer]

Oh, I agree. I made use of the Sigil Linux binary while it was available too. And I'll miss it. But calibre (and previously Sigil) is an exception to the general Linux open-source rule: if you want the latest and greatest version ... build from source. Otherwise, make do with whatever package you can find in your repo. If enough people contact the maintainers of their distro's repos concerning a Sigil package, I have no doubt they'll start adding it, but it's never going to be the latest version.

I found the Sigil build process for Linux fairly straight-forward, but I realize mileage will vary there.

[meme]

A binary for all Linux versions would be great, but isn't supportable. One just for Ubuntu might confuse others. There are links from the Sigil pages for people providing deb packages and other packages although they haven't been tested.

Building on Ubuntu, my main platform, is pretty straightforward. The Running from Source instructions on the web describe what to do, but if you want even more step by step commands then try this.

Note that since I've installed various packages on my system its possible that the install command should list a few other things that might be needed for a completely clean system.

sudo apt-get install build-essential cmake libqt4-dev

-> DOWNLOAD source code file to $HOME/Downloads

SIGIL=$HOME/sigil-0.5.3; export SIGIL
mkdir $SIGIL $SIGIL/source $SIGIL/build $SIGIL/run

cd $SIGIL/source
unzip $HOME/Downloads/Sigil-0.5.3-Code.zip

cd $SIGIL/build

-> OPTION 1 - install separate copy in your home area
cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$SIGIL/run $SIGIL/source
make install
$SIGIL/run/bin/sigil

-> OPTION 2 - install system wide
cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr/local $SIGIL/source
sudo make install
/usr/local/bin/sigil

[weedfreak]

Arch has 3 sigil versions in it's repository's

1 community/sigil 0.5.902-1
WYSIWYG ebook editor
2 aur/sigil-git 20111202-1 (3)
A WYSIWYG ebook editor
3 aur/sigil4epub3 0.3.4.3-1 (0)
A WYSIWYG ebook editor for epub3

[Doitsu]

Originally Posted by weedfreak

Arch has 3 sigil versions in it's repository's

IIRC, Arch Linux does not use the .deb package format. Did they change the default package manager in the latest version?

[DiapDealer]

That last one listed looks like the ePub3 Sigil fork someone is working on.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That last one listed looks like the ePub3 Sigil fork someone is working on.

Correct. It is a fork on SourceForge. It is a fork of 0.3.4. I mentioned it about a month ago.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Correct. It is a fork on SourceForge. It is a fork of 0.3.4. I mentioned it about a month ago.

I remembered someone mentioning it here. I just had no idea it was finding it's way into repos.

[bobcdy]

Recently I've thought about setting up a third computer (I have one with win7 x64 and another with win xp x32) with linux, but decided against it. I had set up a linux machine many years ago, and found that the effort of getting programs to run was just not worth the time and effort so I scrubbed the linux. Recently, though I thought perhaps that program setups had improved with new linux versions - apparently not so as the above posts show. With windows (or mac), one doesn't need to be a expert computer programer in order to run just about any program of choice - more expensive unless one considers his/her time as worth something.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by bobcdy

more expensive unless one considers his/her time as worth something.

The whole "time" thing really isn't a factor in my eyes. I was always going to spend scads and scads of time configuring, tweaking (or wiping out and starting over) my PCs regardless of the OS I choose. That's what I do to relax. So the idea that one OS would cost me more of my time than another one might, just doesn't fly. The time factor is really only relevant to those who know very little about Linux, and building programs from source. And that doesn't have to be a "forever affliction"—teach a man to fish and all that. Once you get your head around the general concept of *nix package management, configuration, compiling from source, etc... you're usually never more than a README away from succeeding at something new. Besides, I never got the memo that we had to choose only one OS. I've got five or six PCs lying around, after all.