Posts: 4,997
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
12
np, dunno how your permissions got messed up. They should be preserved through subversion.
Posts: 4,997
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
12
The only reason I don't add the package requirements is because I want to keep the script distribution independent. It's a PITA to detect distro and would be even more of a pain to maintain package lists for them all. Everyone should know, or learn quickly, to ALWAYs read the README before they do anything with open source software.
Posts: 4,997
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
12
Good point. build.sh now checks for changes to README.linux, forces the user to read it if so, then prompts whether or not to continue.
Posts: 967
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation:
27
Now that "make install" is available, should it be used for SVN releases or should we stick with build.sh?
Posts: 4,997
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
12
I'd leave it up to the user. The whole autotools thing could be too complex for some users. Not to mention you may not want to kill a working build with an untested broken one.
Posts: 967
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation:
27
I'm perfectly happy with build.sh but make install is significantly easier to package for debian/ubuntu... would prefer further development focus on that, IMO.
Posts: 318
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
1
wattazoum
Team-XBMC Linux Packager
Posts: 318
Well, in my opinion, the Build.sh is like an equivalent of "make install". For the packaging, "make" is used to compile and "make install DESTDIR=xxx" to install in a temporary dir in which we will use to split the package into subpackage by specifying the files/dirs to include in each of them.
With the build.sh we can do the same :
use make then build.sh DEST=xxx NOCOMPILE NOCLEAN NOUPDATE
But for sure, the standard way of doing is make , make install
Posts: 4,997
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
12
Once the install target is full featured, I'll likely move build.sh to use it. Until then both will be developed.
Posts: 4,997
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
12
Erm...I dunno what you diffed that to but nothing in the patch even touches build.sh. I'm planning a complete rewrite soon anyway which will add support for this so no biggie.
Posts: 318
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
1
wattazoum
Team-XBMC Linux Packager
Posts: 318
It doesn't touch the build.sh script because it's not meant to. It is for the Makefile install target.
Currently, using the SVN code level, you can install xbmc doing a make install but it will always install under /usr/share/xbmc . But usually the make install command uses a PREFIX=<dir> param to specify the install location. So this patch allows this.
Morover, the install path /usr/share/xbmc is hardcoded currently . Thus installing on another location will fail ( at runtime ). So the patch also changes this.
This is documented in the README.linux file ( after applying the patch )
Best regards
Posts: 4,997
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
12
I think I have a "proper" prefix patch. Testing ATM. I'll run it past d4rk and commit later tonight.