Support for RPM package

[toxinu]

Hi there,

It could be nice to support rpm packaging like deb!

Thank you.

[josefnpat]

+1, but keep in mind 0.9.x isn't very prevalent on rpm based machines. This would be nice, but should probably be a lower priority.

Unless of course one would be willing to make an SRPM (for greater compatibility) that includes love and the game itself, but it would probably less along the *nix philosophy of each package has it's own purpose.

I base my lower priorities on the fact of the available versions in famous RPM based distros:

• Fedora - 0.9.0-3fc
• Mageia - 0.9.1
• openSUSE - 0.9.0
• RHEL6 - N/A
• RHEL5 - N/A
• RHEL4 - N/A
• RepoForge - N/A

While Mageia is great to keep up to date, and also very high on distrowatch (number 4 atm), the RHEL and RepoForge mostly indicates that many folks have to compile love from source. I know that @bartbes maintains the _.debs (debian) and the PPA (_buntu) for love, so it's very easy to get the latest version for debian based systems. Unless we get a maintainer for SPRM's (which would make generating RPM's per OS easy), I would highly suggest making this a lower priority.

[toxinu]

@josefnpat Thank you for your anwser.
My issue was mainly about probing rpm need.
I'm totally not able to build rpm and I agree that it's a lower priority.

But I found it's very sad to not be able to build self contained game with love2d binary.
In order to isolate love2d version just for your game. Cause if I want to install two love2d games on my computer but one is 0.8 and other is 0.9.1, there will be potentially some problems.

[josefnpat]

That's a good point, and honestly an issue across all linux distros. All the binaries by default on debian systems share the binary name love as opposed to love091 (like lua5.1 does)

[toxinu]

I do some tests about love2d embedding.

I just package a little game I do for linux64, download here.
It has been packaged on Ubuntu 14.04 64bit.

You can review Python script that I create for this occasion (here). I can't confirm you that it will work on every Linux 64bit.

If some folks use Fedora or something other than Ubuntu 14.04 64 bit, can you give me some feedback about the game I package just above (here)?

[josefnpat]

may I ask how you went about packaging the binary? Usually when you build love (esp when you aren't using an older version) there are a ton of static binary issues.

[toxinu]

Python script is easy but I can explain it quickly too.

Requirements
For now this script assume that you already have love installed and in your PATH.
For this example, I don't compile Love2D, I use a fresh Ubuntu install via ppa.

How it work
I just run ldd love to get list of lib used by love2d, copy them in a lib directory, copy love binary, create a bash wrapper script that modify LD_LIBRARY_PATH on the fly.

Idea
I could try to enhance this script in order to manage love compilation instead of simply use love binary. Why not ?

[josefnpat]

So long as you are only distributing to ubuntu 14.04, (and perhaps a few releases behind) this should work fine. Other OS's (esp the fedora strain) will give you tons of segfaults. Do not depend on it as a "catch all" for linux deployment.

[toxinu]

Okay thank your for your advice @josefnpat . Is it something you already experiment ?
Cause for me, today linux distribution is nearly broken for love.

Distribution packaging like deb don't allow to have multiple love version on a system and it's a very big issue. And status for rpm-like distros are worse...

[josefnpat]

Yeah, I've been trying for a long time to create a "catch all" for linux binary distribution. It's really ... annoying.

As for installing multiple versions of love, I follow the building instructions for love, and build each require version, then softlink the binary to /usr/bin/love072, /usr/bin/love080, /usr/bin/love091 etc.

[toxinu]

I just give a try to my work just above and it's run on Fedora 👍

Edit: I can't surrender easily! I'll try it tomorrow on Archlinux, Mageia, Debian and Linux Mint.

[josefnpat]

👍 worked for me on arch, but still an exception 😄

[toxinu]

I just test on, Mageia, Debian and Linux Mint.

Linux 64bit build on Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS:

• Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS: Ok
• Ubuntu 13.10: Not Ok
• Linux Mint 17: Ok
• Mageia 4.1: Ok
• Archlinux: Ok
• Debian 7.6.0: Not Ok (cause debian just have EGLIBC 2.13)

Sorry for testing while you say to me to stop 😭

[MisterDA]

Soo... RPM or not RPM ? That is the question. At least a PKGBUILD ?

[pablomayobre]

+1 for the PKGBUILD. RPM is not a priority but would be nice too

[pablomayobre]

I found FPM today... It seems like a good way to make RPMs althought I dont know how it does it, it may be possible