SDL Basic packaging.

[adric22]

I'm curious.. right now I'm just making this game for my own amusement.  But I fully expect many people might enjoy playing it when I'm done.  But I can't expect most people to go download and install SDLBasic before trying to execute my game.  Now, I realize the windows version is supposed to be able to create an all-in-one .EXE file, but this functionality appears broken because I can't get it to work.  But I essentially had two questions:

1) Would it be possible to make some kind of installer that is downloaded as a simple .EXE file that would install not only my game but the SDLBasic runtime too?  I'm guessing since the project is open-source there shouldn't be any legal reasons.

2) What about on Linux?  Now, I'm not currently a Linux user, but I'm pretty familiar with Linux and I've used various ports of Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, etc..  I know, for example, Ubuntu has the add/remove feature where you can select from existing software titles and it will just download it right to the computer with all of the dependencies.  Well, how hard would it be to get my finished game product accessible like that, if it were written in SDL Basic?  Would the Ubuntu/Debian package manager just know to grab SDL Basic, and is SDL Basic even downloadable from the Debian repositories?

[RetroMan]

Inno: http://www.jrsoftware.org/isinfo.php comes to mind as configurable Windows installer. Pretty much just have to wrap a sdlBASIC exe and your code... You'll have to deal with the user security cr*p in Vista and Win7...

The LINUX binding seems to work fine, at least in Ubuntu and so far my test programs have all wrapped as executable files...

Cheers!

[menn]

1) Would it be possible to make some kind of installer that is downloaded as a simple .EXE file that would install not only my game but the SDLBasic runtime too?  I'm guessing since the project is open-source there shouldn't be any legal reasons.

yes you can do that, as long as you include the license and make the source available. (the source does not have to be in the same download, the license typically has to be included with both.) this is for gpl-licensed works, i'm assuming (easy to check if you've downloaded it) sdlbasic is gpl.

2) Ubuntu has the add/remove feature where you can select from existing software titles and it will just download it right to the computer with all of the dependencies.  Well, how hard would it be to get my finished game product accessible like that, if it were written in SDL Basic?

tough to say, i don't know if it's easy to get into the repos but maybe it is. ubuntu and debian have their own repos but the same utilities to download and install: apt, apt-get, synaptic. (ubuntu will probably ditch synaptic but not the backend, apt.) but not everything made for ubuntu uses their package manager.

you can make an unofficial .deb package, which then installs with gdebi (the offline .deb installer... why synaptic can't do it i have no idea) but it must be easier to just write a little bash script (like dos batch, it's just a series of command line instructions, as i'm sure you know) that installs to /opt/sdlbasicVERSIONNO instead. i would call it it something like "sdlbas4" because sdlBasic (sudo apt-get install sdlbasic) may already be installed on the target machine. you could be considerate and make the script ask where to install. "redhat" uses yum.

[RetroMan]

Creating .debs is a PITA... Not to mention that a user would need root access or similar to install it... On a home PC that'd be no big deal, but a box at work might be problematic... I'd just wrap the whole thing up in a .tgz or tar.gz package and let the user download and unarchive it in their home directory where they have permissions.

No muss, no fuss.

Cheers!

[menn]

I'd just wrap the whole thing up in a .tgz or tar.gz package and let the user download and unarchive it in their home directory where they have permissions.

yeah, that's good enough for mozilla, it's good enough for sdlbasic.

[aurelB]

Yes it is crap becose binding dont work for windows
I'm not finish testing PSnake code for binding
But i think that would be posibile add in one file sdl runtime with source
for example with KCDan packager, i made some tests with this program in
past and work ok, maby little slower.

[Cybermonkey]

1. Binding works for Windows! I tried it on Vista and XP, no errors at all. Have you installed the "official" sdlBasic via the installer? (Maybe use the suggested folders).

2. So far as I know, sdlBasic ist licensed under the LGPL (like in SDL) so that you needn't provide the source.

[aurelB]

Yes i install official release and dont work on my both computers with winXP
why? i really dont understand
Like you see i'm not the only one which dont work...

[menn]

2. So far as I know, sdlBasic ist licensed under the LGPL (like in SDL) so that you needn't provide the source.

you'll need to check what license it is if you're going to redistribute it.

lgpl doesn't mean you don't have to provide the source. it means you do have to make the source available (especially if you change it,) but you can include it in non-free (proprietary) projects.

gpl projects (libraries) cannot be distributed with non-gpl projects that hook them. lgpl allows such hooking from non-free projects- that's the biggest difference. (so if you make a proprietary game, it can hook/use/be distributed with sdl, because sdl is lgpl. if it was only gpl, the game would have to be too.)

[Cybermonkey]

you'll need to check what license it is if you're going to redistribute it.

lgpl doesn't mean you don't have to provide the source. it means you do have to make the source available (especially if you change it,) but you can include it in non-free (proprietary) projects.

gpl projects (libraries) cannot be distributed with non-gpl projects that hook them. lgpl allows such hooking from non-free projects- that's the biggest difference. (so if you make a proprietary game, it can hook/use/be distributed with sdl, because sdl is lgpl. if it was only gpl, the game would have to be too.)

Erm, yes that's what I meant. You did say this of course much more clearer ... 

[menn]

Erm, yes that's what I meant. You did say this of course much more clearer ... 

lol. and sdlbasic is gpl anyway. i know it seems tedious, but it's all so cool projects like sdlbasic can continue to be maintained and enjoyed even when the authors have abandoned it. that part of the process is really cool.

[asymetrix]

Just use 7zip self extraction & execution module :

http://7zsfx.solta.ru/en/

[Cybermonkey]

License:

sdlBasic Runtime License
 

 Copyright (C) 2001-2005  David Cuny and sdlBasic team.
 
 sdlBasic runtime is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
 
 This software is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU Library General Public License here below for more details.
 
 

 
GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
 
==================================
 
Version 2, June 1991
 

  Copyright (C) 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
                     675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
 
 [This is the first released version of the library GPL.  It is numbered 2 because it goes with version 2 of the ordinary GPL.]

and so on ...

[menn]

oh! oh, sorry you're right, sdlbasic is LGPL, just like sdl itself. i thought it was a GPL project using the LPGL sdl lib (which would be fine too of course.) mea culpa.

actually for a binding-interpreter kind of "compiler" (it's not a compiler but acts like one) lgpl is a pretty good choice. it means you can "compile" non-gpl projects, which in fairness is exactly what stallman's gcc compiler does.

[asymetrix]

I had some issues with SDLBasic make executable function, it did not like the fact the default install was in "Program Files", maybe the space broke it,as changing the path of my file solved the problem.

I would really like to see a proper compiler for SDLBasic.