From: Michel S. <mic...@gm...> - 2006-02-16 18:01:39
|
Trying to use 0launch with those two, no version is available to select; the version column just contains "(choose)". Hovering on it yields this pop-up message: No suitable implementation was found. Check the interface properties to find out why. Clicking on "Interface Properties", all the available versions are crossed-out. Is this because arch is set to 'Linux-486' ? I am running an AMD64 system; shouldn't 0launch just recompile the requested module if no available binary packages match? Thanks, -- Michel Salim 林智勇 http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~msalim |
From: Ken H. <ke...@ha...> - 2006-02-17 00:32:51
|
On Thu, February 16, 2006 10:01 am, Michel Salim said: > Trying to use 0launch with those two, no version is available to > select; the version column just contains "(choose)". Hovering on it > yields this pop-up message: > > No suitable implementation was found. Check the interface properties > to find out why. > > Clicking on "Interface Properties", all the available versions are > crossed-out. Is this because arch is set to 'Linux-486' ? I am running > an AMD64 system; I think AMD64/x64 is not supported yet. Assuming your system is a pure 64 bit system that is. If you're running multilib and can run both 32 and 64 but binaries, then you should be able to select and download those. I have similar issues at home with ppc/ppc64. Out of curiosity, what is the output of 'uname -sm'? Linux-486 doesn't sound right to me. Was that a typo? > shouldn't 0launch just recompile the requested module > if no available binary packages match? Unfortunately, not yet. The methodology to support source packages has been discussed a bit and I think Thomas is taking a stab at it now. |
From: Michel S. <mic...@gm...> - 2006-02-20 13:12:37
|
On 16/02/06, Ken Hayber <ke...@ha...> wrote: > > Clicking on "Interface Properties", all the available versions are > > crossed-out. Is this because arch is set to 'Linux-486' ? I am running > > an AMD64 system; > > I think AMD64/x64 is not supported yet. Assuming your system is a pure 6= 4 > bit system that is. If you're running multilib and can run both 32 and 6= 4 > but binaries, then you should be able to select and download those. > My system is multilib (using the 32-bit Firefox from mozilla.org without any changes, in fact). zeroinstall-injector is platform independent, so there should be no potential problem caused by it being compiled against 64-bit libraries, right? > I have similar issues at home with ppc/ppc64. > > Out of curiosity, what is the output of 'uname -sm'? Linux-486 doesn't > sound right to me. Was that a typo? Linux x86_64. "Linux-486" is the architecture that the ROX binaries are listed as providing. > > > shouldn't 0launch just recompile the requested module > > if no available binary packages match? > > Unfortunately, not yet. > > The methodology to support source packages has been discussed a bit and I > think Thomas is taking a stab at it now. > Looking forward to it. Thanks for the response .. correct me wrong, but it looks like the easy solution would be to assume that x86_64 users have 32-bit compatibility libraries installed (either chroot-ed for Debian/Ubuntu users or multilib) and assume it's a valid architecture? -- Michel Salim http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~msalim http://the-dubois-papers.blogspot.com/ |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2006-02-20 13:18:24
|
In <883...@ma...>, Michel Salim wrote: > Looking forward to it. Thanks for the response .. correct me wrong, > but it looks like the easy solution would be to assume that x86_64 > users have 32-bit compatibility libraries installed (either chroot-ed > for Debian/Ubuntu users or multilib) and assume it's a valid > architecture? I disagree. I don't think Debian/Ubuntu has adequate support in what passes for its multilib, and I think without ROX-Filer and/or ROX-Session being partially rewritten to support a chroot explicitly, that would constrain the entire desktop to running in the chroot. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |
From: Ken H. <ke...@ha...> - 2006-02-20 15:04:52
|
Tony Houghton wrote: > In <883...@ma...>, Michel Salim wrote: > >> Looking forward to it. Thanks for the response .. correct me wrong, >> but it looks like the easy solution would be to assume that x86_64 >> users have 32-bit compatibility libraries installed (either chroot-ed >> for Debian/Ubuntu users or multilib) and assume it's a valid >> architecture? > > I disagree. I don't think Debian/Ubuntu has adequate support in what > passes for its multilib, and I think without ROX-Filer and/or > ROX-Session being partially rewritten to support a chroot explicitly, > that would constrain the entire desktop to running in the chroot. I pretty much agree. I think a hierarchy (fallback from 64 to 32 bit) would be a better choice. Or a manual orverride of some kind. My system is ppc64 kernel, but all ppc(32) userland - gentoo is just now getting ppc multilib working. I have to maintain uname/arch wrappers to ensure that things build correctly. |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2006-02-20 16:11:58
|
In <43F...@ha...>, Ken Hayber wrote: > Tony Houghton wrote: > >In <883...@ma...>, Michel Salim wrote: > > > >>Looking forward to it. Thanks for the response .. correct me wrong, > >>but it looks like the easy solution would be to assume that x86_64 > >>users have 32-bit compatibility libraries installed (either chroot-ed > >>for Debian/Ubuntu users or multilib) and assume it's a valid > >>architecture? > > > >I disagree. I don't think Debian/Ubuntu has adequate support in what > >passes for its multilib, and I think without ROX-Filer and/or > >ROX-Session being partially rewritten to support a chroot explicitly, > >that would constrain the entire desktop to running in the chroot. > > I pretty much agree. With me or Michael? > I think a hierarchy (fallback from 64 to 32 bit) would be a better > choice. Or a manual orverride of some kind. Yes, if the user can control whether ix86 is acceptable for x86_64 or ppc is acceptable for ppc64, that should work. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |
From: Ken H. <ke...@ha...> - 2006-02-21 02:20:32
|
Tony Houghton wrote: > In <43F...@ha...>, Ken Hayber wrote: > >> Tony Houghton wrote: >>> In <883...@ma...>, Michel Salim wrote: >>> >>>> Looking forward to it. Thanks for the response .. correct me wrong, >>>> but it looks like the easy solution would be to assume that x86_64 >>>> users have 32-bit compatibility libraries installed (either chroot-ed >>>> for Debian/Ubuntu users or multilib) and assume it's a valid >>>> architecture? >>> I disagree. I don't think Debian/Ubuntu has adequate support in what >>> passes for its multilib, and I think without ROX-Filer and/or >>> ROX-Session being partially rewritten to support a chroot explicitly, >>> that would constrain the entire desktop to running in the chroot. >> I pretty much agree. > > With me or Michael? :) You. Sorry. >> I think a hierarchy (fallback from 64 to 32 bit) would be a better >> choice. Or a manual orverride of some kind. > > Yes, if the user can control whether ix86 is acceptable for x86_64 or > ppc is acceptable for ppc64, that should work. |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2006-02-25 19:53:36
Attachments:
ROX-Filer-MyArch
|
On 2/20/06, Tony Houghton <h...@re...> wrote: > In <43F...@ha...>, Ken Hayber wrote: > > I think a hierarchy (fallback from 64 to 32 bit) would be a better > > choice. Or a manual orverride of some kind. > > Yes, if the user can control whether ix86 is acceptable for x86_64 or > ppc is acceptable for ppc64, that should work. In zeroinstall/injector/arch.py we currently have: =09# If this_machine appears in the first column of this table, all =09# following machine types on the line will also run on this one =09# (earlier ones preferred): =09_machine_matrix =3D { =09=09'i486': ['i386'], =09=09'i586': ['i486', 'i386'], =09=09'i686': ['i586', 'i486', 'i386'], =09=09'ppc64': ['ppc32'], =09} So, you can add a line for your arch and any fallbacks. However, if you want to put up a binary for others to use, you can follow these steps... Start by creating an archive as normal: 1. Download the ROX-Filer source release. 2. Build as normal. 3. Delete the ROX-Filer.dbg file to save space (debugging symbols). 4. Delete the build and src directories to save space. 5. Archive it up: $ mv rox rox-linux-MyArch-version $ tar czf rox-linux-MyArch-version.tgz rox-linux-MyArch-version 6. Upload it somewhere. To make it available through 0launch: 1. Take the attached template. 2. Grab a copy of 0publish: $ 0alias 0publish http://0install.net/2006/interfaces/0publish 3. Add the archive to the template: $ 0publish ROX-Filer-MyArch \ --archive-url http://mysite/rox-linux-MyArch-version.tgz \ --archive-file rox-linux-MyArch-2.4.tgz \ --archive-extract rox-linux-MyArch-2.4 4. Edit the <implementation> element to say 'arch=3D"MyArch"'. 5. Set the release date: $ 0publish --set-released 2006-02-25 ROX-Filer-MyArch You should be able to download and test it with: $ 0launch ./ROX-Filer-MyArch 6. Set the uri at the top of the file to whereever you're going to upload i= t. 7. Sign and upload the interface: $ 0publish --gpgsign ROX-Filer-MyArch $ mv ROX-Filer-MyArch /var/www/... Tell me about it so I can add it to the main feed. If you want an example, see http://www.hayber.us/0install/ROX-Filer-Linux-ppc. Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonard=09=09http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2006-02-26 13:18:05
|
I've written up the steps involved in making a binary release of ROX-Filer (e.g., for different architectures) more fully here: http://0install.net/0publish.html It's in the form of a tutorial for 0publish (a command to help with scripting the release process, currently used by rox-release). Let me know if anything's unclear... -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2006-03-18 13:15:33
|
On 3/9/06, Michel Salim <mic...@gm...> wrote: > On 2/25/06, Thomas Leonard <ta...@gm...> wrote: [ ROX-Filer binaries for x86_64 ] > > So, you can add a line for your arch and any fallbacks. However, if > > you want to put up a binary for others to use, you can follow these > > steps... [ http://0install.net/0publish.html ] > I'll try and find the time to do that within the next week. Thanks - > sounds like this kind of informations should be on the wiki? There is a link on the ROX-All page. Please let me know there is anything that isn't explained well in the tutorial. Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonard=09=09http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |