Re: [pygame] PyGame Runtime

[James Paige <Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 11:45:13AM +1000, Cameron Blackwood wrote:
> 
> Hi, long time reader, first time caller... (well ok, second time :)
> 
> James Paige writes:
>   |
>   | > On Tue, 8 May 2007, James Paige wrote:
>   | > >
>   | > > When packaging for Linux, you should NOT be trying to bundle in a copy
>   | > > of python and pygame and all other dependencies. You should instead use
>   | > > a packaging format which simply describes the packages/versions that it
>   | > > depends on. The package manager handles the rest.
> 
> To james I say.....
> 
> Ive had nightmares with rpm's and even a couple of problems with
> ebuilds. You download 26M of ogre/pyogre only to find you need to forward
> your version of libfoo.rpm. Oh, but that breaks your appbar.rpm. Oh and I
> need to upgrade my glibc.rpm. Again. :-/
> 
> Frankly, getting dependany stuff sorted for pyweek is a nightmare
> (even under gentoo, gentoo often rolls their packages forward too
> quickly so older, slower to update libraries have dependancy stuff
> that isnt around in portage any more).
> 
> For linux, people seem to 'chase' the 100% latest version of some of
> these libraries, which is ok for slowly changing ones, but it sucks
> for ones that have a version a week.
> 
> Windows doesnt have the dependancy problem that linux has (or the
> constant version increases) but unless you have a compiler
> you're stuck with the packages that you can _find_, which arnt always
> easily available. *cough* pygame-1.8 */cough* :)
> 
> Getting ogre and some of the bigger libraries compiled on linux is,
> and Ill be nice here, not exactly easy. Oh and I work as a linux sysadmin.
> Yes I could have sat there for hours and worked it out, but you know,
> to tryout/run _one_ pyweek entry, it really wasnt worth it.
> 
> (And before you ask, this was on a gentoo system... it didnt complain
> about dependancy errors, it just failed to build 1/2 way through.
> Yay!)

Interesting. I used to use RPMs on Redhat back in the 1999-2001 range, 
but I gave it up because of dependency hell-- I had simply assumed that 
the Fedora Project had solved those problems since then. I have been 
using Debian and/or Ubuntu ever since. .deb based packaging systems are 
always really good about keeping old versions of libraries available... 

I'm having a hard time thinking of a single instance of dependency 
problems in my entire .deb experience that didn't involve a 
manually-installed program... Perhaps I was mistaken to say that .rpm 
and .ebuild are just as good as .deb...

---
James Paige