librelist archives

« back to archive

3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-03-25 @ 23:10
HI Folks,
I want to create issues for these binaries, since various members build
various binaries.

Are we building both 32/64 bit?  or only 64bit?
... and these platforms No-Video only :

Windows XP and above
OSX SnowLeopard and Lion (separately?)
Linux kernel 2.6.8

Thoughts?
Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-03-25 @ 23:37


> Are we building both 32/64 bit?  or only 64bit?

Cecil pointed out elsewhere that the shows packager doesn't know about 
32/64 bit, so I think we had better not offer multiple versions. I have 
built a fat 32/64 binary for OS x in the past. It's a bigger download. If 
we think it's too big, we could try building 32 bit only, for greater 
compatibility. 

> ... and these platforms No-Video only :
> 
> Windows XP and above
> OSX SnowLeopard and Lion (separately?)

Again, the shoes packager doesn't know about multiple versions per 
platform, so let's stick to one (also, that's all we need for osx anyway)

> Linux kernel 2.6.8

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 00:05
So :

32/64 bit compat compiles :

Windows XP +
OSX SnowLeopard (assume Lion compat ?... this might be iffy)
Linux 2.6.8

Jenna, Steve, Ash, do you concur?

Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > Are we building both 32/64 bit?  or only 64bit?
>
> Cecil pointed out elsewhere that the shows packager doesn't know about
> 32/64 bit, so I think we had better not offer multiple versions. I have
> built a fat 32/64 binary for OS x in the past. It's a bigger download. If
> we think it's too big, we could try building 32 bit only, for greater
> compatibility.
>
> > ... and these platforms No-Video only :
> >
> > Windows XP and above
> > OSX SnowLeopard and Lion (separately?)
>
> Again, the shoes packager doesn't know about multiple versions per
> platform, so let's stick to one (also, that's all we need for osx anyway)
>
> > Linux kernel 2.6.8
>

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Jenna Fox
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 00:39
As of Mac OS X Lion (the current release) Mac OS only runs on 64-bit intel
machines. It would be a bit early to cut off 32-bit users though, and 
there aren't any huge advantages to doing so AFAICT, so best to build only
32-bit for the next year or two, as 64-bit doesn't really gain us much? 
Universal binaries with both 32 and 64 are cool, but I don't really see 
what the point of that is, and the shoes installer would become megabytes 
bigger. Are people making ruby apps which use gigabytes of memory? 
Shipping both does mean larger download sizes.  

I'd like to relate a story:

When I was growing up, my computer had very little ram, and was quite old.
It couldn't run any of the cool games other kids had, and it could barely 
run a web browser, when we got ourselves a 56k modem (56k!!!).

Seeing as I couldn't play any games, I started making stuff, seeing what I
could do with the computer. I found some books on programming, and taught 
myself Quick Basic. A few little DIY games later, and things were getting 
pretty fun on that old computer. I even made my own little joystick paddle
things from scrap to plug in to the joystick port on my sound card.

For that reason, I'm biased towards supporting older platforms longer, 
over supporting newer CPU designs. I think investigating support for ARM 
Linux targets is more worthwhile than spending cycles on 64-bit stuff. 
Shoes and Hackety Hack on Raspberry Pi could be a bit awesome. The 
Raspberry Pi units will be going out to school children in the later half 
of this year with Python preinstalled, as well as a BBC BASIC interpreter.
It'd be nice if Team Ruby could play a part in that. The raw development 
boards can be bought now for about $40 each including shipping, which 
require you BYO power supply (a microusb charger), usb keyboard/mouse, an 
SD card to boot off, and a screen or tv capable of HDMI or composite 
video. They're going out to schools as a sort of disposable PC, for kids 
to experiment on without worrying about messing things up.  

Still, I can see why PowerPC just isn't worth it anymore. If 32-bit intel 
isn't too much trouble, seems like a good idea to stick with it for a 
while yet.  

—
Jenna


On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 11:05 AM, Peter Fitzgibbons wrote:

> So :
>  
> 32/64 bit compat compiles :
>  
> Windows XP +
> OSX SnowLeopard (assume Lion compat ?... this might be iffy)
> Linux 2.6.8
>  
> Jenna, Steve, Ash, do you concur?
>  
> Peter Fitzgibbons
> (847) 859-9550
> Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com (mailto:peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com)
> IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
> IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com (mailto:peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com)
>  
>  
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com 
(mailto:wasnotrice@gmail.com)> wrote:
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > > Are we building both 32/64 bit?  or only 64bit?
> >  
> > Cecil pointed out elsewhere that the shows packager doesn't know about
32/64 bit, so I think we had better not offer multiple versions. I have 
built a fat 32/64 binary for OS x in the past. It's a bigger download. If 
we think it's too big, we could try building 32 bit only, for greater 
compatibility.
> >  
> > > ... and these platforms No-Video only :
> > >
> > > Windows XP and above
> > > OSX SnowLeopard and Lion (separately?)
> >  
> > Again, the shoes packager doesn't know about multiple versions per 
platform, so let's stick to one (also, that's all we need for osx anyway)
> >  
> > > Linux kernel 2.6.8
>  

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 01:22
> Shoes and Hackety Hack on Raspberry Pi could be a bit awesome. The 
Raspberry Pi units will be going out to school children in the later half 
of this year with Python preinstalled, as well as a BBC BASIC interpreter.
It'd be nice if Team Ruby could play a part in that.

I have a board on (back)order. I'd love to work with you on raspberry pi. 
The kidsruby folks had that running on a prerelease raspberry pi, so it 
should be doable

Eric

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 00:18

> OSX SnowLeopard (assume Lion compat ?... this might be iffy)

I have Lion here. Shoes works great :)

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 00:41
Exellent.
Lion seems to have tripped up many an app.


Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > OSX SnowLeopard (assume Lion compat ?... this might be iffy)
>
> I have Lion here. Shoes works great :)
>

Another different proposal for Walkabout

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 06:22
I probably will confuse everyone but I hope not.  Separate in you mind
the two kinds of downloads. There is the one where you click in your
browser to download Shoes. That is just a html list so you can have a
large number of Shoes on offer 32. 64, Lion, Snow leopard, Win 7, Win
XP,..... Even PPC and ARM (if someone does the work). I see no reason
that there shouldn't be lots Shoes available for all variations that
someone is will to compile and upload. 


The second type of download from the website is when a Shoes Script is
packaged into an executable.  When packaging there are two options
"Include Shoes" and "Download if needed". Currently, these are not
version specific - just Generic Windows, OSX and Linux.  Pick what ever
you think most people have (or the latest version for each). The shoes
website is queried for the URL to download to include in the bundle.

With the "Include" shoes option, the download happens AFTER packaging,
when the stub is run on the user's system.  The stubs DO NOT query the
Shoes website to get the URL to download. If you move from rin-shun to
github you need to edit and rebuild the stub(s). 

That's how it works now. It doesn't have to work that way! 

If the stubs were smart enough to detect that they are on a 64 bit
version and they query the  github/shoesrb host for the 64 bit download
url (or 10.2.8/PPC or Ubuntu 12.04/32 ...). Perhaps the website would
provide a "generic" Win/Mac/Nix version url if the more specific version
wasn't available. That would be same generic used in the "Include Shoes"
option

I'm not saying that writing those host aware stubs is easy. They aren't.
but the Linux stub uses bash and I believe the OSX startup has a bash
step as well where perhaps it can figure out which
Shoes-arch-specific.exe to download. Windows does have a better
scripting language than DOS/batch but I don't know very much about it.

I'm suggesting an "all of the above" strategy. "Download Shoes if
needed" would be the obvious choice for packaging script for
Windows/OSX/Linux. File sizes are smaller and [assuming] the stubs can
detect and download arch specific versions there would not be a need for
the "Include Shoes" option in the packager. There is no generic version
of Linux and it looks like there is no generic version of OSX. Even
Windows will move beyond XP2 compatibility. Can't fight it, accept it
and accommodate it.  

The Shoes hosting website needs some server side scripting support
(cgi,php,etc) to help out of course when some stub asks for the Ubuntu
12.04/64 so it can return the nearest version, say 11.04/32, or Fedora
17 and all the server has is Fedora 16 link. 

I know that is a lot to ask in the lemming rush to release something
soon. Given the current state of the project, whether you pick snow
leopard or Lion, 32 or 64, It's going to be wrong for some group of
people. 

For my scheme to work. download queries to the website would have a
query string like /policeman/3.2/osx/intel/10.8/64/shoes3.2.dmg
or /walkabout/4.0/android/armh/2.3.7/32/shoes4.0.pkg or some variation
with hyphens instead of slashes. Whatever the query string is the
website has to figure out which url to deliver and the stubs have to be
aware enough to ask for something reasonable.

For the current rush to 3.1 or 3.2, Just copy the exe, dmg or run as you
build them to where they live now. It won't be worse than it already is
and if there are bug fixes included, it's a Policeman maintenance
release and that is fine and good. Shoes-latest.exe. It's good. 

My proposal is a more strategic, than tactical. It's only a matter of
time until MinGW64 and Ruby mesh up and somebody wants Win8-Shoes4-64.
Prepare now and help it work (or some crazy ass armh build) or continue
to bug fix it later, one rake file line at a time.

--Cecil


 

On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 18:37 -0500, Eric Watson wrote:
> 
> 
> > Are we building both 32/64 bit?  or only 64bit?
> 
> Cecil pointed out elsewhere that the shows packager doesn't know about 
32/64 bit, so I think we had better not offer multiple versions. I have 
built a fat 32/64 binary for OS x in the past. It's a bigger download. If 
we think it's too big, we could try building 32 bit only, for greater 
compatibility. 
> 
> > ... and these platforms No-Video only :
> > 
> > Windows XP and above
> > OSX SnowLeopard and Lion (separately?)
> 
> Again, the shoes packager doesn't know about multiple versions per 
platform, so let's stick to one (also, that's all we need for osx anyway)
> 
> > Linux kernel 2.6.8

Re: [shoes] Another different proposal for Walkabout

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-03-31 @ 13:11
Cecil,

I totally agree with your plan here. The current system is not robust 
enough for moving forward, but we can maintain a compatibility layer with 
the old system even as we implement a more robust one.

Eric 

On Mar 26, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Cecil Coupe wrote:

> I probably will confuse everyone but I hope not.  Separate in you mind
> the two kinds of downloads. There is the one where you click in your
> browser to download Shoes. That is just a html list so you can have a
> large number of Shoes on offer 32. 64, Lion, Snow leopard, Win 7, Win
> XP,..... Even PPC and ARM (if someone does the work). I see no reason
> that there shouldn't be lots Shoes available for all variations that
> someone is will to compile and upload. 
> 
> 
> The second type of download from the website is when a Shoes Script is
> packaged into an executable.  When packaging there are two options
> "Include Shoes" and "Download if needed". Currently, these are not
> version specific - just Generic Windows, OSX and Linux.  Pick what ever
> you think most people have (or the latest version for each). The shoes
> website is queried for the URL to download to include in the bundle.
> 
> With the "Include" shoes option, the download happens AFTER packaging,
> when the stub is run on the user's system.  The stubs DO NOT query the
> Shoes website to get the URL to download. If you move from rin-shun to
> github you need to edit and rebuild the stub(s). 
> 
> That's how it works now. It doesn't have to work that way! 
> 
> If the stubs were smart enough to detect that they are on a 64 bit
> version and they query the  github/shoesrb host for the 64 bit download
> url (or 10.2.8/PPC or Ubuntu 12.04/32 ...). Perhaps the website would
> provide a "generic" Win/Mac/Nix version url if the more specific version
> wasn't available. That would be same generic used in the "Include Shoes"
> option
> 
> I'm not saying that writing those host aware stubs is easy. They aren't.
> but the Linux stub uses bash and I believe the OSX startup has a bash
> step as well where perhaps it can figure out which
> Shoes-arch-specific.exe to download. Windows does have a better
> scripting language than DOS/batch but I don't know very much about it.
> 
> I'm suggesting an "all of the above" strategy. "Download Shoes if
> needed" would be the obvious choice for packaging script for
> Windows/OSX/Linux. File sizes are smaller and [assuming] the stubs can
> detect and download arch specific versions there would not be a need for
> the "Include Shoes" option in the packager. There is no generic version
> of Linux and it looks like there is no generic version of OSX. Even
> Windows will move beyond XP2 compatibility. Can't fight it, accept it
> and accommodate it.  
> 
> The Shoes hosting website needs some server side scripting support
> (cgi,php,etc) to help out of course when some stub asks for the Ubuntu
> 12.04/64 so it can return the nearest version, say 11.04/32, or Fedora
> 17 and all the server has is Fedora 16 link. 
> 
> I know that is a lot to ask in the lemming rush to release something
> soon. Given the current state of the project, whether you pick snow
> leopard or Lion, 32 or 64, It's going to be wrong for some group of
> people. 
> 
> For my scheme to work. download queries to the website would have a
> query string like /policeman/3.2/osx/intel/10.8/64/shoes3.2.dmg
> or /walkabout/4.0/android/armh/2.3.7/32/shoes4.0.pkg or some variation
> with hyphens instead of slashes. Whatever the query string is the
> website has to figure out which url to deliver and the stubs have to be
> aware enough to ask for something reasonable.
> 
> For the current rush to 3.1 or 3.2, Just copy the exe, dmg or run as you
> build them to where they live now. It won't be worse than it already is
> and if there are bug fixes included, it's a Policeman maintenance
> release and that is fine and good. Shoes-latest.exe. It's good. 
> 
> My proposal is a more strategic, than tactical. It's only a matter of
> time until MinGW64 and Ruby mesh up and somebody wants Win8-Shoes4-64.
> Prepare now and help it work (or some crazy ass armh build) or continue
> to bug fix it later, one rake file line at a time.
> 
> --Cecil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 18:37 -0500, Eric Watson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Are we building both 32/64 bit?  or only 64bit?
>> 
>> Cecil pointed out elsewhere that the shows packager doesn't know about 
32/64 bit, so I think we had better not offer multiple versions. I have 
built a fat 32/64 binary for OS x in the past. It's a bigger download. If 
we think it's too big, we could try building 32 bit only, for greater 
compatibility. 
>> 
>>> ... and these platforms No-Video only :
>>> 
>>> Windows XP and above
>>> OSX SnowLeopard and Lion (separately?)
>> 
>> Again, the shoes packager doesn't know about multiple versions per 
platform, so let's stick to one (also, that's all we need for osx anyway)
>> 
>>> Linux kernel 2.6.8
> 
> 

Re: [shoes] Another different proposal for Walkabout

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 09:00
Oy.  THIS is why we have been investigating JRuby.
And also dependency hell.
Thats off-topic though.

I'm not sure what to think of this yet for Redshoes.  I'll watch your
discussions.

Shoes On

Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Cecil Coupe <ccoupe@cableone.net> wrote:

> I probably will confuse everyone but I hope not.  Separate in you mind
> the two kinds of downloads. There is the one where you click in your
> browser to download Shoes. That is just a html list so you can have a
> large number of Shoes on offer 32. 64, Lion, Snow leopard, Win 7, Win
> XP,..... Even PPC and ARM (if someone does the work). I see no reason
> that there shouldn't be lots Shoes available for all variations that
> someone is will to compile and upload.
>
>
> The second type of download from the website is when a Shoes Script is
> packaged into an executable.  When packaging there are two options
> "Include Shoes" and "Download if needed". Currently, these are not
> version specific - just Generic Windows, OSX and Linux.  Pick what ever
> you think most people have (or the latest version for each). The shoes
> website is queried for the URL to download to include in the bundle.
>
> With the "Include" shoes option, the download happens AFTER packaging,
> when the stub is run on the user's system.  The stubs DO NOT query the
> Shoes website to get the URL to download. If you move from rin-shun to
> github you need to edit and rebuild the stub(s).
>
> That's how it works now. It doesn't have to work that way!
>
> If the stubs were smart enough to detect that they are on a 64 bit
> version and they query the  github/shoesrb host for the 64 bit download
> url (or 10.2.8/PPC or Ubuntu 12.04/32 ...). Perhaps the website would
> provide a "generic" Win/Mac/Nix version url if the more specific version
> wasn't available. That would be same generic used in the "Include Shoes"
> option
>
> I'm not saying that writing those host aware stubs is easy. They aren't.
> but the Linux stub uses bash and I believe the OSX startup has a bash
> step as well where perhaps it can figure out which
> Shoes-arch-specific.exe to download. Windows does have a better
> scripting language than DOS/batch but I don't know very much about it.
>
> I'm suggesting an "all of the above" strategy. "Download Shoes if
> needed" would be the obvious choice for packaging script for
> Windows/OSX/Linux. File sizes are smaller and [assuming] the stubs can
> detect and download arch specific versions there would not be a need for
> the "Include Shoes" option in the packager. There is no generic version
> of Linux and it looks like there is no generic version of OSX. Even
> Windows will move beyond XP2 compatibility. Can't fight it, accept it
> and accommodate it.
>
> The Shoes hosting website needs some server side scripting support
> (cgi,php,etc) to help out of course when some stub asks for the Ubuntu
> 12.04/64 so it can return the nearest version, say 11.04/32, or Fedora
> 17 and all the server has is Fedora 16 link.
>
> I know that is a lot to ask in the lemming rush to release something
> soon. Given the current state of the project, whether you pick snow
> leopard or Lion, 32 or 64, It's going to be wrong for some group of
> people.
>
> For my scheme to work. download queries to the website would have a
> query string like /policeman/3.2/osx/intel/10.8/64/shoes3.2.dmg
> or /walkabout/4.0/android/armh/2.3.7/32/shoes4.0.pkg or some variation
> with hyphens instead of slashes. Whatever the query string is the
> website has to figure out which url to deliver and the stubs have to be
> aware enough to ask for something reasonable.
>
> For the current rush to 3.1 or 3.2, Just copy the exe, dmg or run as you
> build them to where they live now. It won't be worse than it already is
> and if there are bug fixes included, it's a Policeman maintenance
> release and that is fine and good. Shoes-latest.exe. It's good.
>
> My proposal is a more strategic, than tactical. It's only a matter of
> time until MinGW64 and Ruby mesh up and somebody wants Win8-Shoes4-64.
> Prepare now and help it work (or some crazy ass armh build) or continue
> to bug fix it later, one rake file line at a time.
>
> --Cecil
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 18:37 -0500, Eric Watson wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Are we building both 32/64 bit?  or only 64bit?
> >
> > Cecil pointed out elsewhere that the shows packager doesn't know about
> 32/64 bit, so I think we had better not offer multiple versions. I have
> built a fat 32/64 binary for OS x in the past. It's a bigger download. If
> we think it's too big, we could try building 32 bit only, for greater
> compatibility.
> >
> > > ... and these platforms No-Video only :
> > >
> > > Windows XP and above
> > > OSX SnowLeopard and Lion (separately?)
> >
> > Again, the shoes packager doesn't know about multiple versions per
> platform, so let's stick to one (also, that's all we need for osx anyway)
> >
> > > Linux kernel 2.6.8
>
>
>

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
James Gifford
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 01:01
On Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 19:10, Peter Fitzgibbons wrote:
> HI Folks,
> I want to create issues for these binaries, since various members build 
various binaries.
> 
> Are we building both 32/64 bit?  or only 64bit?
Heres the deal with Linux: 

I can provide Ubuntu binaries, as well as anything else (Fedora 32, 
openSUSE etc) we need. The catch (and this is a big one) is that suggest 
that the best way to distribute a Linux binary (if we *have* to do it) is 
to do three - 32 10.04, 32 11.10 and then 64 11.10. 

Reasoning: with 10.04, there was no multiarch, meaning that all the 
libraries are in the same place for 64 AND 32. 

With 11.04, they started doing multiarch, and it was done for 11.10 - at 
this point I fixed the library issue on the build process, but still not 
fixed completely at runtime. 

So I suggest supporting the LTS (at lest for Ubuntu, since we've had bad 
experiences with running a Ubuntu .run on a fedora box), and then the 
latest stable.

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 01:19
I had a suspicion the answer was going to sound like this.

So, from a support basis, what distros/versions/bitwidths would you say we
should build ?

Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 8:01 PM, James Gifford <james@jamesrgifford.com>wrote:

>  On Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 19:10, Peter Fitzgibbons wrote:
>
> HI Folks,
> I want to create issues for these binaries, since various members build
> various binaries.
>
> Are we building both 32/64 bit?  or only 64bit?
>
> Heres the deal with Linux:
>
> I can provide Ubuntu binaries, as well as anything else (Fedora 32,
> openSUSE etc) we need. The catch (and this is a big one) is that suggest
> that the best way to distribute a Linux binary (if we *have* to do it) is
> to do three - 32 10.04, 32 11.10 and then 64 11.10.
>
> Reasoning: with 10.04, there was no multiarch, meaning that all the
> libraries are in the same place for 64 AND 32.
>
> With 11.04, they started doing multiarch, and it was done for 11.10 - at
> this point I fixed the library issue on the build process, but still not
> fixed completely at runtime.
>
> So I suggest supporting the LTS (at lest for Ubuntu, since we've had bad
> experiences with running a Ubuntu .run on a fedora box), and then the
> latest stable.
>

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 01:30

> The catch (and this is a big one) is that suggest that the best way to 
distribute a Linux binary (if we *have* to do it) is to do three - 32 
10.04, 32 11.10 and then 64 11.10. 

This conversation has been about the binary that the shoes packager 
downloads to package apps. This has been a .run. Should be 
distro-independent. 

For binaries distributed *outside* the shoes packager, we can use whatever
format, architecture, etc we want. 

It's only the code inside the shoes packager that enforces these restrictions. 

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Victor Goff
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 01:37
"32 10.04, 32 11.10 and then 64 11.10."

What?  You talk about distro-independent, and then mention these versions
which hint at a specific distribution of Linux.  I am not sure I understand
or if you have introduced some confusion.

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 01:47
On Mar 25, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Victor Goff wrote:

> "32 10.04, 32 11.10 and then 64 11.10."
> 
> What?  You talk about distro-independent, and then mention these 
versions which hint at a specific distribution of Linux.  I am not sure I 
understand or if you have introduced some confusion.
> 

Oops. Didn't mean to introduce confusion. Maybe my message quoting didn't 
come across clearly? I was responding to a previous message that suggested
the three different versions.

I am suggesting that we need to use a distro-independent version for the 
packager, *not* targeting a specific distro, release, or architecture.

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 02:04
.run is consistent with the current contents of
https://github.com/shoes/shoes/downloads, so I'm going with .run,
distro-independent.

Thanks,

Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 25, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Victor Goff wrote:
>
> > "32 10.04, 32 11.10 and then 64 11.10."
> >
> > What?  You talk about distro-independent, and then mention these
> versions which hint at a specific distribution of Linux.  I am not sure I
> understand or if you have introduced some confusion.
> >
>
> Oops. Didn't mean to introduce confusion. Maybe my message quoting didn't
> come across clearly? I was responding to a previous message that suggested
> the three different versions.
>
> I am suggesting that we need to use a distro-independent version for the
> packager, *not* targeting a specific distro, release, or architecture.
>

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 02:25
All this sounds good.

Also, I emailed the Rasberry Pi people about hackety and shoes long
ago, and they didn't respond to me.

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 02:33
Maybe we can build it first, then they will come.

Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>wrote:

> All this sounds good.
>
> Also, I emailed the Rasberry Pi people about hackety and shoes long
> ago, and they didn't respond to me.
>

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
Victor Goff
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 01:58
Probably just my confusion, really.


On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 21:47, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 25, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Victor Goff wrote:
>
> > "32 10.04, 32 11.10 and then 64 11.10."
> >
> > What?  You talk about distro-independent, and then mention these
> versions which hint at a specific distribution of Linux.  I am not sure I
> understand or if you have introduced some confusion.
> >
>
> Oops. Didn't mean to introduce confusion. Maybe my message quoting didn't
> come across clearly? I was responding to a previous message that suggested
> the three different versions.
>
> I am suggesting that we need to use a distro-independent version for the
> packager, *not* targeting a specific distro, release, or architecture.
>

Re: [shoes] 3.2 Walkabout Release Binaries - Itemized

From:
James Gifford
Date:
2012-03-26 @ 10:12
On Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 21:30, Eric Watson wrote:
> 
> 
> > The catch (and this is a big one) is that suggest that the best way to
distribute a Linux binary (if we *have* to do it) is to do three - 32 
10.04, 32 11.10 and then 64 11.10. 
> 
> This conversation has been about the binary that the shoes packager 
downloads to package apps. This has been a .run. Should be 
distro-independent.

Theoretically, yes.  However, shoes (at least it did two months ago when I
checked) has some libraries hard coded into it - primarily libssl and 
libcurl (not 100% sure on that last one though). Because of where say, 
Fedora stores it compared to a Debian distro, shoes won't run. 

> 
> For binaries distributed *outside* the shoes packager, we can use 
whatever format, architecture, etc we want 
> It's only the code inside the shoes packager that enforces these restrictions. 
> 
> 


Derp, looks like I misunderstood the exact purpose of this thread. That's 
what I get for not being around more (silly school work). :)