Re: Ubuntu+Python app development + distribution
Bump. Could someone give me some advice? 2009/9/29 Olof Bjarnason > Hi Ubuntu-dev-discuss! > > I'm writing small games using Python with add-on library PyGame. > > I'm using bzr+lp to host the project (it's called fortressdefender). > I'm really satisfied with bzr+lp so far. > > However - now I want to distribute my game via a .deb file, since it > is the most user-friendly alternative for visitors of my blog. > > I know about the PPAs and how it's possible to quite simply add my > game to my PPA-page on Launchpad. > > The catch with that approach is that I think it is too hard for > end-users for several reasons: > > 1. Adding the addition URL to the Administration->Program sources->3rd > party applications is not a day-to-day businees, many will find it > hard. > 2. There is some kind of integer code needed to verify the package > also, even more cumbersome for end-user. > > If there was a way to specify the URL in the ordinary Ubuntu > Program->Add/remove app', and skip the integer code step, it would be > viable. > > How would you guys convert a "pure" python application (with the only > dependency python-pygame) to a .deb file? > > If I'm asking on the wrong mailing list, sorry, and please direct me > to the right one. > > Yours sincerely, > > > /Olof > > -- > twitter.com/olofb > olofb.wordpress.com > olofb.wordpress.com/tag/english > -- twitter.com/olofb olofb.wordpress.com olofb.wordpress.com/tag/english -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Karmic Alpha 6/Beta
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:35:23 -0500 Luke L wrote: > If you've updated ANY of the alphas, you'll have the beta installed. > The only thing I can think of that won't get updated is GRUB, > depending on what updates they've done there. If it is true that there are packages/sets of packages that will not get installed through 'apt-get dist-upgrade' during the development cycle, is there a communication method for dev teams to let testers know if a reinstall or invocation of update-manager is needed to move from alphaX to alphaX/beta to follow the preferred K/X/Ubuntu package set? (Knowing full well that there are daily updates during the devel cycle.) Dave -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Karmic Alpha 6/Beta
If you've updated ANY of the alphas, you'll have the beta installed. The only thing I can think of that won't get updated is GRUB, depending on what updates they've done there. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:44 PM, NoOp wrote: > > Sorry if this is the wrong list to ask this question. If so, can > someone please point me to the appropriate list? My question: > > Can anyone here please advise if karmic Beta is simply a fully updated > Alpa 6? > > Answering yes will avoid added server/mirror downloads from > users/testers that already have Alpa 6 (fully updated) & I can post that > information on the Ubuntu users list accordingly. > > Answering no & I'll ask someone to explain why and/or provide links to > information that advises the differences. So please asssist with details > if you can. > > Thanks, > > NoOp (wandering off course from the Ubuntu users list) > > > > > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- Luke L. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Karmic Alpha 6/Beta
Sorry if this is the wrong list to ask this question. If so, can someone please point me to the appropriate list? My question: Can anyone here please advise if karmic Beta is simply a fully updated Alpa 6? Answering yes will avoid added server/mirror downloads from users/testers that already have Alpa 6 (fully updated) & I can post that information on the Ubuntu users list accordingly. Answering no & I'll ask someone to explain why and/or provide links to information that advises the differences. So please asssist with details if you can. Thanks, NoOp (wandering off course from the Ubuntu users list) -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Experiences on using the alternate amd64 install daily CD
For the record, this is the CD available on cdimages.ubuntu.com, dated of 20090929-2. This was the latest daily CD this morning (US-CDT time). A brief introduction. My laptop has been going through version upgrades since Hardy; I have been running Karmic on it since pretty much the start. From last Monday I started having serious issues with the system, and this morning I decided it was high time for me to format the system partitions, and reinstall Karmic. The disk is partitioned as follows: sda1 - Dell diagnostics partition, FAT16, around 50M. sda2 - /boot, 1G sda3 - swap, 5G sda4 - LVM, rest of the disk. Under LVM we have: / /usr /usr/src /opt /var /srv /tmp /home All of these are logical partitions under LVM. I decided to format /, /usr/, /var, /tmp, and /home. /opt, /srv, and /usr/src would be maintained, and I carefully saved what I wanted from /home into /usr/src (I did not have access to any other media this week, and I need the system). Then, to install. Again, this is the alternate install for ADM64. Booted the CD, no problems, went into partitioning. Prob #1: my /opt, /var, and /usr/src are original ext3, upgraded to ext4. So I got the following issues: #1.1 If I mark the partitions above as EXT4 -- which they are --, they are marked as needing formatting. #1.2 if I mark the partitions above as EXT3 -- which they are *NOT* -- they are not marked as needing formatting, but fail to validate at the end of partitioning. Bypass to #1.1 and #1.2: do not mount the partitions during install. I do not know, yet, what will happen *after* the install. Prob #2: I wanted to encrypt only two of the partitions, /home and swap. So, when I was done setting up the parttions I went into encryption, and marked BOTH /home and swap to be encrypted. I then got prompted for the encryption key for /home *ONLY*. Gave it, and got to an error screen stating swap was not encrypted, so the install could not go on. After a series of tries, I found I would be able to encrypt the swap only by: (a) mark the swap as whatever other type of FS. I chose FAT32; (b) write the partition; (c) go back to partition, mark the swap as swap, then select to encrypt it. This *would* be a bypass, but during this process the installer lost track of the /home partition, and I was then warned that the partition that would be /home was not mounted on any mount point. Prob #3: if you mark a partition for encryption you CANNOT edit or change the mount point. Bypass: reboot, start from scratch, do NOT select any partitions to be encrypted. Right now I do not know how the tale will end. I am still installing. But I wonder if I will lose my partitions I wanted to keep. Please do not waste time stating "this is alpha", etc, etc. I know. I know the risk I was running in. It is worth noting, though, that this is the first time since Hardy that I can lose an existing partition. I will open bugs on these if they are considered real issues. Regards, -- ..hggdh.. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: possible regression in last jaunty kernel upgrade
Felipe Figueiredo gmail.com> writes: > when I did the kernel upgrade from 2.6.28-14-generic to > 2.6.28-15-generic, the installation never completed, and I lost the > ability to use aptitude and apt-get. I don't know against which package > I should report a bug. If this was caused by a bug in the kernel upgrade, you should file it against the "linux" package. However, I guess you can sort it out with: sudo rm /var/cache/apt/*.bin Then the usual apt-get -f install, update, upgrade, dist-upgrade etc, and update-grub. HTH, Tormod -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
