Hi Greg,
I can build you an Ubuntu 10.10 or newer vm for vmware if you would like.
Just because it is Linux does not mean that you have to distribute in
source form. I have never really spent time figuring out how the
packaging systems work for building and distributing. There must be some
tools for this though.
Best,
-Jack
--
# Jack de Valpine
# president
#
# visarc incorporated
# http://www.visarc.com
#
# channeling technology for superior design and construction
On 5/13/2011 12:53 PM, Thomas Bleicher wrote:
Hi Greg.
I don't have much experience with Linux in a VM (only using Windows)
but I expect that both provide similar features.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Gregory J. Ward
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I was thinking I could install a "virtual appliance" for one of
the available Linux systems under VMWare Fusion:
http://www.vmware.com/appliances/directory/cat/5793?k=&sort=created
<http://www.vmware.com/appliances/directory/cat/5793?k=&sort=created>
From this list I would think that either "Ubuntu 10.10" or "Fedora 14
desktop image" would be a good choice. Ubuntu 11.04 is now out but it
ships with a new default desktop which may be confusing (although it's
closer to a Mac if you like your dock on the left side of the screen).
In the end it shouldn't matter because you will have to satisfy a
large variety of distributions/desktops/versions which are in use today.
This should permit me to do the development work on my Mac,
avoiding the need for another computer or dual-boot system, but
I'm open to alternative suggestions.
I assume you can "export" a directory to the guest OS in a Linux VM as
you can on Windows. This allows you to edit your files on the Mac and
only go to Linux when you have to compile. I have a similar setup with
Mac/Windows but it's mostly because a VM on my laptop is noticeably
slow and it's not nice to work in it. Of course you can also use
scp,rsync or a source control system to sync between two directories.
If I did get one of these VA's, which one would be most useful to
the community?
If you want to provide an easy to install binary packages for your app
you will have to install both VMs because they represent different
package managers (RPM based vs. DEB based). I think there is a tool to
convert an *.rpm to a *.deb package but I'm not sure about that. Bernd
can give you all the information you need on *.deb.
If you expect your users to be fairly familiar with their system you
can also just provide *.tgz archives. Matured Linux users will know
what to do with it.
Would I have to distribute Photosphere in source form with a build
system to reach a reasonable number of Linux users?
These days I expect that most Linux users rely on their package
manager to get software installed. If you want to get included in
major distributions like Debian you will have to provide source code,
too. However, I don't think it's a problem for anyone to download a
*.deb or *.rpm file and double-click to install.
I ask because I still have some hopes of recovering some of my
development and documentation costs for Photosphere, which has
been in the works for nearly a decade. (For those of you who
don't know, I have been distributing the Mac version for free from
www.anyhere.com <http://www.anyhere.com>, but since it is also
based on Carbon, I can't go any further with it.)
I am a bit out of touch with Linux libraries these days but I remember
that is used to be hell to get the right version for a particular
software. Further GTK (which is used by wxWindows on Linux) is about
to release a new major version which might mess up the GTK based
desktops for a while.
I think if you build static binaries you shouldn't be too bothered by
all of this. But then I don't really understand all the details.
Regards,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
HDRI mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/hdri
_______________________________________________
HDRI mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/hdri
