(09-27-2012, 05:16 AM)pville Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2012, 02:54 AM)neobrain Wrote: [ -> ]We don't provide source packages because a) no one of the devs really care about it (sorry, but it's the way it is) b) the source is >50 MB when including the Externals directory (if we excluded that, we'd basically drop Windows support for the source package AND most linux distributions which don't have all of the dependencies in their default repos) c) I don't really see why you can't just use Git for getting the source (Git doesn't require you to check out the whole history [I think you can even get around creating a local Git repo at all?], so you really get the same result like with a tar.gz anyway).
a) If you don't care, then I can't care for you. This is an opportunity to see how Dolphin compiles across many different systems and also to bring the joy of GameCube/Wii gaming to more people. The pkgsrc team has a set of servers which are used to bulk build packages and test them. You can see some examples of pkgsrc bulk build results here:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-bulk
If that's not interesting to any of your developers...
No, that's not interesting, and we don't really care if you can't care for us. Dolphin won't work on Netbsd anyway, the GL backend currently requires Cg which is a proprietary library from Nvidia available only on Windows/Linux/OSX x86/x64.
Altho there was some guy porting dolphin to BSD or something...
Its software rendering only. Anyone want to go on a rms rant on the perils of using proprietary software.
(09-27-2012, 07:14 AM)delroth Wrote: [ -> ]No, that's not interesting, and we don't really care if you can't care for us. Dolphin won't work on Netbsd anyway, the GL backend currently requires Cg which is a proprietary library from Nvidia available only on Windows/Linux/OSX x86/x64.
Oh?
http://pkgsrc.se/wip/Cg-compiler
NetBSD has Linux binary emulation. The package works fine. I have other packages depending on it already.
(09-27-2012, 08:55 AM)ExtremeDude2 Wrote: [ -> ]Altho there was some guy porting dolphin to BSD or something...
Well, if we can just get the thing into pkgsrc, it will compile and install on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD, MirBSD, Darwin, and BSD/OS, since all of those are supported by the pkgsrc infrastructure.
Hello again,
It has been a while since the last response. Still wondering if it would be possible to get a DDL to a latest stable source tarball. I am keen on continuing work with this package.
Thanks,
Has the situation changed? Nope, probably not. My question to you is, does this source tarball absolutely have to be hosted on the Dolphin site or Google Code page? What exactly is preventing package authors from hosting the file themselves? Mere rules or is it something technical? If you can host it yourself or find someone who will host the source tarball, that'd be the easiest solution.
Also, shouldn't pkgsrc be able to handle files that aren't direct downloads? I'm lead to believe as much from the
documentation here.
(11-02-2012, 02:02 AM)Shonumi Wrote: [ -> ]My question to you is, does this source tarball absolutely have to be hosted on the Dolphin site or Google Code page?
Or one of its official mirrors.
Quote:What exactly is
preventing package authors from hosting the file themselves? Mere rules
or is it something technical?
That is the question i have been asking myself since starting this thread and receiving so much resistance to a very simple request.
Quote:If you can host it yourself or find
someone who will host the source tarball, that'd be the easiest
solution.
That wouldn't be acceptable since security is a consideration. How would it be easier anyway? I don't understand what is so difficult for those involved in this project to upload or or two distfiles to your site for the latest stable version of this package.
Quote:Also, shouldn't pkgsrc be able to handle files that aren't direct downloads? I'm lead to believe as much from the documentation here.
Yes, it can, but requires an additional script written to handle dynamic URLs, which i wouldn't mind writing if such a URL to a source distfile existed.
pville Wrote:That is the question i have been asking myself since starting this thread and receiving so much resistance to a very simple request.
My question was directed at you. Why so hung up on having an "official" mirror? As long as it's hosted somewhere with an accessible url, that should be enough if I'm understanding your situation correctly.
pville Wrote:That wouldn't be acceptable since security is a consideration. How would it be easier anyway? I don't understand what is so difficult for those involved in this project to upload or or two distfiles to your site for the latest stable version of this package.
What kind of security measures need to be in place? Fwiw, you could just probably just make your own clone of Dolphin on Google Code and put up your own source tarball through that. This would be easier since it'd get done faster than the devs would do it (note how you're still waiting for that tarball). It's already been stated by the devs themselves why they won't do it.
(11-07-2012, 02:32 AM)Shonumi Wrote: [ -> ]My question was directed at you. Why so hung up on having an "official" mirror? As long as it's hosted somewhere with an accessible url, that should be enough if I'm understanding your situation correctly.
Because no one would have any reason to trust it. Nobody with two spare brain cells functioning correctly would put the source in that archive into a compiler.
Quote:What
kind of security measures need to be in place?
A distfile on your site or one of your official mirrors. It would be great if you could provide checksums or signatures for the file, much like GNU/OpenSUSE/et al. do for their distfiles. This is pretty standard operating procedure in the open source world.
Quote: Fwiw, you could just
probably just make your own clone of Dolphin on Google Code and put up
your own source tarball through that. This would be easier since it'd
get done faster than the devs would do it (note how you're still waiting
for that tarball). It's already been stated by the devs themselves why
they won't do it.
I haven't heard a concrete "no" and even less an explanation as to why not. These sorts of issues are solved normally in one message to project administrators.
No. Is that concrete enough?