I have a standalone server running Cygwin -- I did not setup this server, it was inherited. Anyway, I'd like to know what options the installing admin selected in the setup program.
I've read that I could look in /etc/setup, /etc/postinstall, or /etc/preremove but there are a lot of packages in those directories... same goes for the output of cygcheck -c.
I don't want to know every single library on the system... just how to duplicate the install. Is there a way to determine which packages were select in the GUI setup program?
Thanks!
Cygwin is pretty standalone. You should be able to archive up the entire Cygwin directory (and subdirectories) and move it to the same location on another system.
If you archive it up I recommend 7-zip. You can get it free here. The built in Windows archiver can create permission problems when an archive is extracted on a destination system. I recommend 7-zip for both archiving and unarchiving. If you use the built in Windows archiver and then move it to the new system and extract it - it will extract without errors. However you may find things don't actually work right while using some Cygwin applications
If you don't copy everything you won't move any of the original admin's custom changes.
Related
On my website I need to give users an ability to download and easily start my executable (AppImage binary) on Linux.
For Windows version it is just .exe which works after downloading and clicking:
Download file
Click on file in browser downloads panel to start it
For Linux user now needs to do following:
Download file
Open folder containing file from browser downloads panel
Right click on it to add exec permission
Click on "Allow execution of this file" checkbox
Press Ok
Click on file to start it
It is hard to explain this flow for regular user, it makes users leave away.
Is it possible to minimize it to minimal clicks as on Windows?
Any advises appreciated to achieve minimal clicks. I can compile app for any format (its on electron but I can process it before upload)
I thought about using .deb . It will limit app for Debian-based only, but main problem in same time that I did not find ability to run post installation to exec app, and I don't want ask user to enter start menu.
Executable bits are a basic UNIX security measure thus it is not really easy to work around this (for good reason). Thinking about this, for the specific case of downloaded files, Windows also applies some restrictions (special NTFS stream which tells Windows Explorer to warn about the dangers of an executable file from the Internet).
You can of course provide your application as a .tar.something archive and store executable files in there. After extraction, they will normally have the correct execution bits set.
The option with the deb-package can also solve your problem (for some users) but is a little more complicated:
User downloads deb package
User clicks on deb package and has some program installed that provides a GUI for installing packages (like gdebi). Like on Windows there will be some "security check" in form of a dialog box where the user needs to enter a (sudo) password. Afterwards, apt will install the package
If the package is created correctly, it can transport the executable bit correctly such that no explicit permission change is needed afterwards. If for some reason there is need to do something post-installation, Debian packages can provide postinst scripts which run (as root!) at the end of the package's installation.
In any case, as dealing with executable files is a common procedure on Linux, it might not scare so many users away as expected. If you want to make it comfortable for the users, provide the package as they expect/like them. On Windows I would think that to be a .msi package and on Linux I prefer a package corresponding to my distribution (.deb, .rpm).
If you want the users to update their packages regularly (good for security) then it is helpful to provide a "repository" that users can add and install your package from. Of course, "the best" is having a package as part of the distribution, but that is quite some effort and needs to pass a lot of "quality assurance gates" :)
I just try to set up Valves Source SDK 2013 for Linux but I need to say that I find the wiki + documentation rather confusing and partly heavily outdated (Windows-only instructions, only for GoldSrc / pre-20XX SDk etc.).
I hope that someone who already has gone through the hassle can supply me with some hints on how to correctly set up the system.
I tried to use some Windows-specific instructions to understand the system but some are highly platform-specific.
So here is the current status (I based what I did on this wiki page: Wiki: Source SDK 2013:
The source of the SDK SDK 2013 from GitHub is cloned to
~/Git/source-sdk-2013/
the SDK Base 2013 installed via Steam and the steam-runtime to
~/working/steam-runtime-sdk_2013-09-05/
I was not sure whether there is a specific path I should put the steam runtime into so I just put it into my self-created working dir.
# Create a Multiplayer sample project
export SDKROOT="~/Git/source-sdk-2013"
bash $SDKROOT/mp/src/creategameprojects
bash $SDKROOT/mp/src/createallprojects
# Setup Steam Runtime
export STEAMRT="~/working/steam-runtime-sdk_2013-09-05/"
cd $STEAMRT
# Choose all build targets (i386 + amd64) and download these
./setup.sh
# Set current to target to the same as host machine (ie. amd64)
./shell.sh
# Compile the actual game
make -f $SDKROOT/mp/src/games.mak
I have not yet touched any source files as there's plenty of sources already supplied. I just wanted to confirm having a working toolchain set up
This all compiles fine but in the end the script wants to chmod the client.so and server.so but claims "not found" – but it sadly does not provide any information where it searched for them. Actually these are existant in
$SDKROOT/mp/game/mod_hl2mp/bin
and even marked as executable (-rwxr-xr-x).
So I just ignored this and hoped for the best. The next line to me sounds a bit strange:
At this point you should have client.so and server.so files to load with the Source SDK Base 2013 of your choice.
So I should be able so load the files with "the Source SDK Base 2013" (of your choice?!? Valve is the only one providing it O.o). How am I supposed to do that? I have not found any hint whatsoever for that, sadly.
But they hint me to the README.txt of the steam-runtime which tells me to do this:
run.sh ./MyGame
But where's the executable? I only have .so's
And this is the point where I currently am. I'm quite confused as I have many questions now:
Why do only the Linux users need to download the steam runtime? What if I want to not ship via Steam?
Is that chmod failure a script failure or a mistake in my directory setup?
How do I load these libraries via the SDK Base
Where is the binary? I'm quite confused here...
Have I overlooked something?
I appreciate any hints or links to resources, maybe explanations when I just were to dumb to understand what they mean :P
EDIT: Actually there is a GitHub repo for the steam-runtime too (GitHub/steam-runtime) – why is the download so outdated, the git repo has some updated stuff going on. Which should one choose?
With the help of a friend I didn't expect to be able to answer this (he didn't know about Linux but we could figure it out) I could solve it faster than expected.
To "load" the game via the Steam SDK Base just append the -game parameter and point it to the directory with the gameinfo.txt (ie. $SDKROOT/mp/game/mod_hl2mp/) in it.
Alternatively just copy the contents of this directory to
~/.local/share/Steam/steamapps/sourcemods/$MYSOURCEMOD
where $MYSOURCEMOD is how you want to call it (do not use spaces). Then add a steam.inf file in that dir with following content:
appID=243750
ProductName=$MYSOURCEMOD
PatchVersion=1.0.0.0
After a restart Steam will be able to find the sourcemod.
I'm not quite sure what the "steam-runtime" thingy is but I suppose it is to set up the build environment (to use a custom gcc etc.) as this is how the scripts look like. I'm not sure why you should run the game via the run.sh in the bin/ subfolder of the runtime instead of via Steam or via the parameter one the Source SDK Base but maybe someone can enlighten me here.
The archive one shall download is only a downloader/configurator for the steam-runtime hosted on GitHub.
I have what might be a simple question and might be....a more complex one. We are preparing to add NSIS to our software, that is, we want people who use our software to be able to create installers using NSIS, but through our software. (We'll be creating functions using NSIS, acknowledging NSIS, etc.) What I am trying to figure out before we get started is how many/what files our customers will be required to have on their hard drive for NSIS to work. So, we just need to know if nsis can be used standalone or if it requires the user to install it into program files, or if it requires a lot of different files in AppData - If we have to bundle a few .dlls, that's not a problem and is expected. Ultimately, if we end up having to bundle NSIS as well, that's fine - We just want to make sure it'll work on other people's computers without telling them to go download it.
MakeNSIS does not read/write from/to the registry or anywhere else and only needs a handful of files for minimal operation.
To build a simple installer you need:
NSIS\MakeNSIS.exe (Just calls Bin\MakeNSIS.exe)
NSIS\Bin\MakeNSIS.exe
NSIS\Stubs\* (If you are only going to use a specific compression mode you only need one, and the uninstaller file if you want uninstall capability)
If you want to use the Modern UI you need its header files, some files from Contrib (Graphics and UI) and system.dll and nsDialogs.dll from the plugin folder.
Everything else is optional but I would recommend that you also bundle:
NSIS\Include
NSIS\Plugins (You can remove stuff you will never need; dialer, splash etc)
NSIS\Contrib (Language files, graphics and UI)
You can find license information here.
You could also just ask the user to install it and enter the path to it in your setup program...
I would just include all of the files. (It's only 5MB or so) NSIS has a zip archive as well as exe installer that includes the necessary files. (Or just zip up the installed directory from exe installer).
From my experience, NSIS does not need to be installed to work. I run a fleet of build servers that build NSIS-based installers, and they each just have the files extracted in a directory. The installer is never run on them. This should mean there are no DLLs to register or things like that.
Just make sure you are following whatever their licensing terms are - I have not reviewed redistribution/bundling of their files in another product, since that is not something I do.
I have written an open source (GPL) application for Linux and OSX and now wish to distribute it. Is it normal to distribute the source code along with the binaries by default, or just provide a link to where it can be obtained?
If I include the source files, where is the normal location for writing them on the users system for Linux and OSX (I thought /usr/local/src but on my Ubuntu machine, supposedly chock-full of open source apps, this directory is empty).
It is usual to distribute the sources and binaries separately. Binaries would normally be distributed in distro-specific package formats whilst sources would be a simple .tar.gz containing a project folder. The user could unpack it to /usr/local/src if they wanted but it should build anywhere. It's not up to your program to drop its sources in any particular location.
I thought /usr/local/src but on my Ubuntu machine, supposedly chock-full of open source apps, this directory is empty
It will be empty if you are only using the Ubuntu repos. The OS is in charge of /usr and will drop any sources you install into /usr/src. But /usr/local is left for you to play with; that's where you install stuff that the distro doesn't provide.
About /usr/local/src
/usr/local and any subdirectories are always going to be empty on your machine unless YOU have specifically put something in there. It's a section of the filesystem that is reserved for user-installed software for that specific machine. Ubuntu (or any distribution) is not ever supposed to touch it.
Your distro will have separate places for its own source code, if any. Most Ubuntu installations won't need source code anyway (though you can download it if you want to), but if they do it'll go somewhere like /usr/src. But if you want to place your own source code somewhere and don't want your distro to mess with it, then just:
If it's just for developing/compiling in your own user account, you can just put it somewhere in your home directory.
If it's a piece of software you'll installing on the system, /usr/local/src is the suggested spot and your distro won't mess with it there.
FHS is the standard which says where in the filesystems things go, and includes distinctions such as the ones I've discussed above.
Your software should be able to be compiled no matter which directory it's in, because as you can see, it can depend.
It's worth looking at a few projects on Sourceforge (http://www.sf.net). As menioned by #bobince it's normal to distribute binaries and source separately. It's certainly kind to users not to require compilation so they can download and run.
I'm trying to update our installer so a user can simply double-click on a file and have all the dependencies and our software installed easily. This is a suite of applications that will are deployed on a clean Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) installation. I have investigated making a .deb file, but listing the dependencies doesn't work, because there isn't any Internet access available. And, any script that would set up a local APT repository would still need to be run from the command line. Is there a way to put a .deb file inside of a .deb file?
I know many companies ship shell scripts that you have to chmod +x, and then execute. This is not acceptable. It is ridiculous that this isn't possible; especially considering the distribution and architecture is fixed.
If you are totally confident that it will be installed on the same system every time, you can find the list of package dependencies yourself, fetch them from the Ubuntu repositories, and package them up with your software. You just have to be clear that your software is for a specific version, probably deal with things like keeping up with maintenance releases.
You can also easily install with a script. As for your complaint about making scripts executable, well, I don't know how you're shipping your product, but since you say it's going somewhere without Internet access, I assume it's going to be copied from some kind of media. If you make the script executable when you put it on that media, you're done.
If you'd like to do this using packages, you can create a CD-ROM which contains a package repository. You can find all kinds of information on this with Google Search. For starters, try this - it's a GUI for doing it. http://aptoncd.sourceforge.net/
A makeself self-extracting executable that starts the install script using sudo will work.
The user can either run it from a terminal (after chmod-ing it) or can double-click it and tell it to "Run" from the prompt.
It's possible to put deb-files into deb-files. The only thing you need to do is to configure the appropriate scripts.
A .deb-file consists of:
1x control.tar.gz: contains a file "control" (describes the package) and optional files like "postinst" (script executed right after extraction). There are other files you might include, and Google Search should deliver information about the available scripts.
1x data.tar.gz: contains some structure of root-filesystem which contains files/folders that need to be (re-)placed. Additionally, you may configure the behaviour in the mentioned scripts.
1x debian-binary: as far as I remember, this is simply a version number in a file. I don't know exactly what it means; just remember that in most of the cases this is 2.0.
So you now may put your .deb files in the data-package. Those are extracted by your script... and installed using:
# dpkg -i yourpackage1.deb yourpackage2.deb