I don't know exactly what you mean by "upstream syncing", but I'll give you an example of what I was referring to:
Originally Posted by ethana2
I was using Ubuntu 8.04, and I decided that I wanted to give Nexuiz a try. The only version available in the package manager was 2.24. Reading around Ubuntu forums and/or doc I found that they had no intentions of backporting the newest version. That, in addition to a few other outdated packages that weren't backported, prompted me to switch to openSUSE 11. After the switch, I added a repository or 2, and proceeded to install the games (via one click install mind you). With minimal effort, I installed the latest versions of Warsow (which Ubuntu had stuck at 0.32), Nexuiz, and Open Arena. And it gets better...
When I installed openSUSE 11, I opted to go with KDE4. After the install, I upgraded to KDE 4.0.3, and then upgraded again to 4.1.2 - and did both with virtually no problems whatsoever. To sum it up, the developer didn't have to provide me with new packages, because SUSE did a great job of supporting it's own distro.
Last edited by Joe Sixpack; 03-23-2009 at 02:56 AM.
You're getting off topic here. I never said anyone had to be an expert. Windows will be number 1 in the desktop area because OEM vendors ship it and companies won't develop for Linux - no other reason. I get more phone calls about people needing help doing something in Windows then you can imagine. Spyware, registry corruption, drivers (almost NOTHING is supported internally by Windows), etc, etc. So to imply that Windows is easier to use is completely false.
Originally Posted by bulletxt
Having said that, you can either have a distro that's easy to use and provides you with packages when they feel they're safe , or you can stay more up to date - but with a little more work. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Wouldn't installing bleeding edge software from a third party defeat the whole purpose of using Ubuntu? That's rather counter-productive to the safe haven of Linux they try to provide. Because guess what? The moment it doesn't work properly, they (the game devs) are responsible for making it work - since you made it clear you have absolutely no desire to figure out why it isn't working yourself. The end result is more time being spent on maintaining packages for a distro project they don't even work on and less time working on their own project. So why even open that can of worms?
Soo... either wait for Ubuntu to release packages officially, or get your hands dirty. Don't blame the devs for not supporting a distro that does the vast majority of it's supporting internally anyways. Ubuntu doesn't deserve special treatment just because newbies love it.
And FYI: phoronix is hardly a website targeted towards people who'd "rather pay $30 than compile it myself". Consider where you are before you complain about opinions here. Nothing wrong with those types of users, but this is hardly their international headquarters.
About Windows: Thank you, yes. About software: you bring up an interesting point, but there's a difference between 'bleeding edge' and 'point and bugfix releases'. It may even turn out that what I want out of an upgrade system is somewhat debian-like in nature.. I don't even know anymore.
Originally Posted by Joe Sixpack
About Wesnoth, this isn't a matter of them having to do a ton more work. They obviously already built .debs. I don't even think they have to make their own apt repos, but I think they've done that already too (as many have pointed out that may be considered above and beyond the call of duty). The only thing I'm taking issue with on the part of the Wesnoth developers is that they didn't put the ubuntu binaries with the windows and mac osx binaries. I don't even really care that much from the perspective of a person who uses Ubuntu. What I don't want is Windows users who just got done watching some PC+Mac commercial on TV going to the Wesnoth download page and having their OS duopoly mentally reinforced by Wesnoth's lumping Ubuntu together with all the other desktop operating systems whose market share it surpasses in combined total. Ubuntu is not 'other'. Ubuntu will take the usability and polish of Mac OS X onto the hardware it doesn't have the balls to handle. Even if ubuntu is only a 'gateway drug' to free software, that's an important step for users to take, and its important to do every reasonable thing possible to give them the confidence to take that step.
I disagree with compiling being a sin, but that is probaly off topic for this forum...
Originally Posted by ethana2
Anyway, I do compile stuff quite often. While it might waste some energy, I don't think the increased consumption is that significant, especially when compared to some other ways to spend free time, or when considering that I would probably use the computer for something else anyway.
In addition, self-compiled software works perfectly for me quite often. I can also take advantage of my package manager by creating packages of the software instead of blindly running 'make install'.
I know that Ubuntu has kept the top spot at Distrowatch for quite a long time, but it doesn't mean that it's the only significant Linux distribution in existence. It also doesn't mean that Ubuntu users should try to undermine the position of other Linux distributions and their users, like me.
The source code works for all the major distributions and even other operating systems, provided that they ship the dependencies for the software being compiled. That's why I think the source tarball is the primary product of the software project. They event wouldn't need to ship anything else, since it's the distribution's job to precompile the software for their users.
I also wouldn't recommend installing random precompiled packages downloaded from web, regardless of the distribution. If the package is good, then why isn't it in the official distribution?
In general our release is ONLY the source tarball. That is everything. Most linux users know to use their package manager to get updated packages either because the distro they use has them anyway, or because they are able to add other "sources of packages" in the list, sources they know of to be trustworthy. Windows and Mac users on the other hand are basically unable to do so.
There is a plain and simple reason why we don't link packages for single Linux distributions on our announcements: The announcement text has to be ready several days before the announcement it put online. Most packages are *NOT* done by one of our core developer but by people from the distributions. We have no influence on if/when anything will be ready there.
With other words: either learn to live with the sources, wait till your package manager has it, or search how to "extend" the list of package sources for your package manager to get more up to date sources in.
How do you do that?
Originally Posted by muep
"In general our release is ONLY the source tarball. That is everything. Most linux users know to use their package manager to get updated packages either because the distro they use has them anyway, or because they are able to add other "sources of packages" in the list, sources they know of to be trustworthy. Windows and Mac users on the other hand are basically unable to do so."
Yes, I have quite a few alternate apt servers in my sources list. On the mac side though, even though fink didn't have enough available software for me to bother with it.. I don't know, OS X doesn't ship with it..
"There is a plain and simple reason why we don't link packages for single Linux distributions on our announcements: The announcement text has to be ready several days before the announcement it put online. Most packages are *NOT* done by one of our core developer but by people from the distributions. We have no influence on if/when anything will be ready there."
Now, this makes sense I guess.. still a tiny bit confused, but I'll just go with that and let y'all be.
I use the same tools and methods that are used to create the original packages for my distribution. The guide that got me started with that is still just a draft, but it is available here.
Originally Posted by ethana2
For dpkg-using distros, the process is quite different, but the basic method is the same: make the package automatically install to some known temporary place, and have the tools make a package from the file tree at that location.
I know this isn't very easy for a newcomer, but it isn't hard if one is already familiar with compiling software. In addition, the built packages can often easily be shared with others of the distro where they were built.
There are also source rpms and source deb packages, which, if created suitably, can be automatically built on all the distributions that use the same package management system.
Originally Posted by ethana2
compiling works very well on none broken distributions - and it works. It works even BETTER than binary pacakges. You know nothing. Please don't ridicule yourself anymore.
Oh, and the wesnoth guys vreate a cool game FOR FREE. Do you pay them? No, then stop complaining.
And for all Ubuntu users that will upgrade to 9.04 and want to play Wesnoth: You will be able to rely on the package manager!
The exception from the feature freeze that was required to bump Wesnoth into Jaunty was granted: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...th/+bug/346990