From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2008-12-30 12:35:37
|
I'm trying an experiment: ROX-All 1.4 should be easy to install even on machines without Internet connections. Instructions are here: http://roscidus.com/desktop/ROX-All The other change is that some programs whose Zero Install feeds are no longer available were removed and Zero Install itself was removed from the archive (since most popular distributions include it now and the bundled copies tended to get out-of-date). Also, ROX-All now has its own Zero Install feed (http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/ROX-All.xml). Running it opens the applications directory. The main advantage of this is that you can pass the feed URL to 0export to generate the bundle. e.g. I used this command: $ xargs 0export --arch Linux-i586 --arch Linux-x86_64 rox-all-no-network.sh http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/ROX-All.xml < bundle-list This creates a self-extracting archive that includes ROX-All and all the applications in "bundle-list", for x86 and x86_64 machines. -- Dr Thomas Leonard ROX desktop / Zero Install GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Jonathan E. B. <je...@jo...> - 2009-01-04 18:40:14
|
Tried it. Working rather well. J.E.B. > I'm trying an experiment: ROX-All 1.4 should be easy to install even > on machines without Internet connections. Instructions are here: > > http://roscidus.com/desktop/ROX-All > > The other change is that some programs whose Zero Install feeds are no > longer available were removed and Zero Install itself was removed from > the archive (since most popular distributions include it now and the > bundled copies tended to get out-of-date). > > Also, ROX-All now has its own Zero Install feed > (http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/ROX-All.xml). Running it opens the > applications directory. The main advantage of this is that you can > pass the feed URL to 0export to generate the bundle. e.g. I used this > command: > > $ xargs 0export --arch Linux-i586 --arch Linux-x86_64 > rox-all-no-network.sh http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/ROX-All.xml < > bundle-list > > This creates a self-extracting archive that includes ROX-All and all > the applications in "bundle-list", for x86 and x86_64 machines. > > |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@gm...> - 2009-01-06 19:19:17
|
That's good to hear :-) 2009/1/4 Jonathan E. Brickman <je...@jo...>: > Tried it. Working rather well. > > J.E.B. > > >> I'm trying an experiment: ROX-All 1.4 should be easy to install even >> on machines without Internet connections. Instructions are here: >> >> http://roscidus.com/desktop/ROX-All >> >> The other change is that some programs whose Zero Install feeds are no >> longer available were removed and Zero Install itself was removed from >> the archive (since most popular distributions include it now and the >> bundled copies tended to get out-of-date). >> >> Also, ROX-All now has its own Zero Install feed >> (http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/ROX-All.xml). Running it opens the >> applications directory. The main advantage of this is that you can >> pass the feed URL to 0export to generate the bundle. e.g. I used this >> command: >> >> $ xargs 0export --arch Linux-i586 --arch Linux-x86_64 >> rox-all-no-network.sh http://rox.sourceforge.net/2008/ROX-All.xml < >> bundle-list >> >> This creates a self-extracting archive that includes ROX-All and all >> the applications in "bundle-list", for x86 and x86_64 machines. >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > rox-users mailing list > rox...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rox-users > -- Dr Thomas Leonard ROX desktop / Zero Install GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Mithat K. <mit...@ya...> - 2009-01-14 23:17:03
|
I've got some ROXApps that I want to make available system-wide in Debian. My first thought was to create a directory in /usr/local and place the application folders in there (e.g. /usr/local/apps). After that I would create scripts in /usr/local/bin that call each ROXApp's AppRun so that the Apps are also available at the command line. However, after reading http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-4.9.html#FN23, I get the impression that maybe I'm not supposed to be making new directories in /usr/local. Or may I? Any other suggestions for the best place to plant system-wide ROXApps? -Mithat |
From: Musus U. <mu...@ve...> - 2009-01-15 17:21:18
|
On Wednesday 14 Jan 2009, Mithat Konar wrote: > However, after reading > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-4.9.html#FN23, I get the > impression that maybe I'm not supposed to be making new directories > in /usr/local. Or may I? You may indeed create whatever directories you need in /usr/local :) Perhaps the confusion comes from this line: "No other directories, except those listed below, may be in /usr/local after first installing a FHS-compliant system." The key words in that are actually "after first installing", i.e. this restriction doesn't apply to your use of /usr/local unless you happen to be installing the base system. The restrictions in the FHS are more to do with that distributions install/create, with the intention that after an OS (re)install you can rely on certain things existing and that there will be no conflict with/overwriting of others. Of course, if you were wanting to package & release something for general use then that's different. OTOH, as a local system administrator, if you're wanting to stick to the FHS then /usr/local is definitely the place to put things. All AIUI, Adny -- Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn | Personal: ad...@ve... kann man uns am Himmel sehn | Techie: mu...@ve... wir haben Angst und sind allein | WWW: verelanthe.co.uk/musus/ Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein! | UT: adn...@go... -- Rammstein / Engel |
From: Mithat K. <mit...@ya...> - 2009-01-15 17:49:46
|
Thanks for the clarification. That indeed was the line I was concerned about. I am also thinking about making a /usr/rox-apps directory. Do you know if this is also FHS-ok? I see a list of required directories in /usr (http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/fhs/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY), but I don't see anything prohibiting making new directories. And I'm pretty sure ROXApps are "shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts." -Mithat --- On Thu, 1/15/09, Musus Umbra <mu...@ve...> wrote: [snip] > On Wednesday 14 Jan 2009, Mithat Konar wrote: > > However, after reading > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-4.9.html#FN23, I > get the > > impression that maybe I'm not supposed to be > making new directories > > in /usr/local. Or may I? > > You may indeed create whatever directories you need in > /usr/local :) > > Perhaps the confusion comes from this line: "No other > directories, > except those listed below, may be in /usr/local after first > installing > a FHS-compliant system." The key words in that are > actually "after > first installing" [snip] |
From: Musus U. <mu...@ve...> - 2009-01-15 19:21:39
|
On Thursday 15 Jan 2009, Mithat Konar wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. That indeed was the line I was > concerned about. :) > I am also thinking about making a /usr/rox-apps directory. Do you > know if this is also FHS-ok? My understanding is that this is not OK; for one thing anything /you/ install (rather than, say, is installed by your distro's package manager, etc) really belongs in /usr/local. There's also this prohibition in that FHS page: "Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the /usr hierarchy." The word "large" is a bit odd there, but I read it as meaning "No matter how big & important you think your package is" sort of thing :) As Tony Houghton suggests, /opt is also an option - a lot depends on quite how you regard ROX, I guess. For me it's something I install locally so quite definitely lives in /usr/local. If I was installing it site-wide or similar, then /opt/ROX (or similar) would be ideal. Again, all AIUI, Adny -- Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn | Personal: ad...@ve... kann man uns am Himmel sehn | Techie: mu...@ve... wir haben Angst und sind allein | WWW: verelanthe.co.uk/musus/ Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein! | UT: adn...@go... -- Rammstein / Engel |
From: Mithat K. <mit...@ya...> - 2009-01-16 20:13:29
|
Thanks again for the clarifications and additional ideas. I am leaning toward putting them in /opt as Tony suggests, specifically /<one of my domain names>/roxapps. (BTW, both my Etch and Lenny installs have /opt directories ... so I'm a little confused by Tony's comment about Debian not using /opt.) Using /opt will let me keep the apps as application folders and -- as far as I can tell -- not get me into trouble with the FHS police. :-) -Mithat --- On Thu, 1/15/09, Musus Umbra <mu...@ve...> wrote: > From: Musus Umbra <mu...@ve...> > Subject: Re: [rox-users] Best place for system-wide ROXApps in Linux? > To: rox...@li... > Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 9:21 PM > On Thursday 15 Jan 2009, Mithat Konar wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification. That indeed was the line > I was > > concerned about. > > :) > > > I am also thinking about making a /usr/rox-apps > directory. Do you > > know if this is also FHS-ok? > > My understanding is that this is not OK; for one thing > anything /you/ > install (rather than, say, is installed by your > distro's package > manager, etc) really belongs in /usr/local. > > There's also this prohibition in that FHS page: > "Large software packages > must not use a direct subdirectory under the /usr > hierarchy." The > word "large" is a bit odd there, but I read it as > meaning "No matter > how big & important you think your package is" > sort of thing :) > > As Tony Houghton suggests, /opt is also an option - a lot > depends on > quite how you regard ROX, I guess. For me it's > something I install > locally so quite definitely lives in /usr/local. If I was > installing > it site-wide or similar, then /opt/ROX (or similar) would > be ideal. > > Again, all AIUI, > Adny > -- > Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn | Personal: > ad...@ve... > kann man uns am Himmel sehn | Techie: > mu...@ve... > wir haben Angst und sind allein | WWW: > verelanthe.co.uk/musus/ > Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein! | UT: > adn...@go... > -- Rammstein / Engel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > SourcForge Community > SourceForge wants to tell your story. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword_______________________________________________ > rox-users mailing list > rox...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rox-users |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2009-01-16 20:26:52
|
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:13:23 -0800 (PST) Mithat Konar <mit...@ya...> wrote: > Thanks again for the clarifications and additional ideas. I am leaning > toward putting them in /opt as Tony suggests, specifically /<one of my > domain names>/roxapps. (BTW, both my Etch and Lenny installs have /opt > directories ... so I'm a little confused by Tony's comment about > Debian not using /opt.) Using /opt will let me keep the apps as > application folders and -- as far as I can tell -- not get me into > trouble with the FHS police. :-) What's in your /opt directories already? The only thing I've ever had there in Debian is Adobe AIR which has its own installer (it took me quite a while to work out where it had installed itself!). -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |
From: Mithat K. <mit...@ya...> - 2009-01-16 23:23:25
|
Aha ... by "doesn't use" you meant "doesn't put anything into," not "doesn't honor the use of." Yes, my /opt is empty in both systems. -Mithat --- On Fri, 1/16/09, Tony Houghton <h...@re...> wrote: > > (BTW, both my Etch and Lenny > installs have /opt > > directories ... so I'm a little confused by > Tony's comment about > > Debian not using /opt.) > > What's in your /opt directories already? The only thing > I've ever had > there in Debian is Adobe AIR which has its own installer > (it took me > quite a while to work out where it had installed itself!). |
From: Tony H. <h...@re...> - 2009-01-15 17:53:59
|
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:16:56 -0800 (PST) Mithat Konar <mit...@ya...> wrote: > I've got some ROXApps that I want to make available system-wide in > Debian. My first thought was to create a directory in /usr/local and > place the application folders in there (e.g. /usr/local/apps). After > that I would create scripts in /usr/local/bin that call each ROXApp's > AppRun so that the Apps are also available at the command line. > > However, after reading > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-4.9.html#FN23, I get the > impression that maybe I'm not supposed to be making new directories in > /usr/local. Or may I? > > Any other suggestions for the best place to plant system-wide ROXApps? The main problem is that ROXApps are at odds with an important principle of the FHS by bundling everything for one app in a single directory instead of splitting them up into */lib and */share etc. It looks like it would be OK to use AppDirs in /opt <http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.12.html>, but Debian doesn't use /opt. Luckily most ROX apps can be split up without changing much, eg by just replacing APPDIR in the AppRun file. I'd recommend you do that where possible, and use /usr/local/lib/ROXApps/, /usr/local/share/ROXApps/ etc. Drop the local/ if making Debian packages. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |