A Debian/Ubuntu PureBasic installer

[freak]

> I don't want start a flame war, so I'm send you a PM. I suggest you re-read my entire post before replying.

I appreciate you taking this privately and i apologize. (Although i'd say a little less bold would have done the trick too )


Here is our take on the installation process:

There was an official .deb package at one point, but it just wasn't practical to maintain.

PureBasic itself doesn't need any installation anymore. You just unpack the archive and run the IDE thats all. The only thing left are the dependencies and here it gets tricky. Every distribution is different, even if you just focus on the deb package management and the distributions are updated so rapidly that it is hard to keep up. So we decided that no .deb package is better than a broken/outdated one.

If somebody is willing to create a dependency package and keep it up to date then we welcome that of course, but there won't be an official one any time soon.

[LaurieT]

I understand your viewpoint.
However I am trying, for the umpteenth time, to break my Windows habit, and a package would be a tremendous help.
All I ask is that you continue to review the package situation.
My REALBasic for example does a very straightforward install, but I would much prefer to use my PureBasic.
I guess if I had the appropriate mental abilities to cope with the Linux Install/dependancies process, I'd be working away in C rather than Basic.
One final thought, maybe it would make life easier for newbies like myself if some of the links on this thread which no longer point anywhere useful were removed.

[eVAPor8]

I completely agree with LaurieT. It seems mad to me that even having all the dependencies installed and confirming the checker script most of the example source code fails to even compile (well... that's once you get the compiler actually loading) - and I'm running on a bog-standard Ubuntu 9.04 distro so it's hardly an uncommon build (other than my custom boot-screens, etc).

Much like Laurie I don't have the time, resources (and basically will) to debug and trace the problems with PB under Linux, but it's definately a problem area. So much so that I'm... *cough* actually considering running PB under WINE just to get progging again. And that is just insane!

I don't know about others, but my experience with PB on Linux is that even when you've got it running and complining the IDE seems to "pick up" some of the Libs but seems to miss a shed-load of others, hence the problems with "missing" Constants, etc. I can live with Win API functions, but when "#PB_Example_Code_Constant" or a generic function is unrecognized it's just "too much like hard work".

I fully realise that building and maintaining a PB.deb would be full-time job in itself, but my (and it seems other's) experience is that PB does NOT work "straight out of the box". I'd guess that the PB devs, etc installed this or that .so or package three years ago and have forgotten it, but it's "chaining up to dead-ends" when the system tries to initialize.

It seems to me that the problem here is probably a lack of of testing and documentation - Should PB be running from a folder on the desktop? Should it be in /usr/share or maybe /bin/ ? Should I sudo it to ensure the compiler loads? There seems to be no clarification other than "Just unpack it and it should run from...."

And "should" it just not good enough.

What we need is clarification and while I realise Linux is a pain (because it's so configurable, customizable and powerful) PB (IMHO) is beginning to fall into the M$DN trap where the "documentation" says little more than:

"Function: Find(var_Find1, var_Find2_, [Bool_ChristAloneKnows])"

Finds ..um... stuff in... other er... stuff.

Was this article helpful?
[] Yes
[] No
[] Thank god for Google
[] The barrel is already in my mouth

[lexvictory]

bog-standard Ubuntu 9.04

I use the same thing; however Kubuntu - so the only difference is KDE.

The only problems I've ever had are with finding the Ubuntu-specific package names; in which case I just use synaptic.
Perhaps the readme should mention that pkg-config is needed for the dependency checker script to work (IIRC)

Should PB be running from a folder on the desktop?

Did you not understand the readme? (not trying to be mean here)

[LaurieT]

I'm afraid to say I didn't understand the "readme".
I'm running Ubuntu 9.04 and I couldn't find packages which exactly matched, either with Add/Remove or with Synaptics.
Maybe there's some convention about capitalisation or package name which "everyone" knows but I'm don't.

Just so you know where I'm at, over the years I have written small but useful code packages on Windows (VisualBasic3 then 6, and lastly RealBasic) usually for control via serialfor PIC's (in assembler or Oshonsoft Basic).
So in a simple sort of way I know how to code and PureBasic looks like the right tool for me.
I would like very much to be cross platform particularly as with Ubuntu and possibly Chrome, Linux looks like its going mainstream, it's just the sheer vastness of knowledge required to get Linux going that throws me every time.

[freak]

> I'd guess that the PB devs, etc installed this or that .so or package three years ago and have forgotten it, but it's "chaining up to dead-ends" when the system tries to initialize.

I install PureBasic on tons of different Linux distributions for testing and bugfixing and i can assure you that this is not the case.

I just ran these steps here right now for testing:

• Installed a clean Ubuntu 9.04 and booted it
• Opened a console, typed the following:

  Code: Select all

  sudo apt-get install build-essential libgtk2.0-dev libsdl1.2-dev libgnomeprintui2.2-dev

• Downloaded the PB package to the desktop
• Right-clicked on the PB package and selected "Extract here"
• Opened the new folder, went to the "compilers" directory and double-clicked the "purebasic" file
• voilà

Seriously, how hard is that ?

After this, the bulk of the examples that come with PB work. Some stuff like ODBC databases the Movie lib or the 3D engine have more dependencies but the basic stuff works. Having a package available only takes away the step two, and it is very much a two-sided sword because if the package does not match 100% with your distribution you will just end up with even more confusing errors.

> Much like Laurie I don't have the time, resources (and basically will) to debug and trace the problems with PB under Linux, but it's definately a problem area.

Sorry but if you want to develop on Linux you have to know it at least a little bit. We try to keep the bar low but there is only so much we can do.

On a side note:

All of you who seem to have problems with Ubuntu and PB: Keep in mind that Ubuntu (being a single CD distribution) is in its base install not focused on writing programs at all and therefore none of the needed tools and libraries are installed by default. You have to install those yourself (but as you see above, its not hard). There are other Linux distributions such as Suse for example that come with development tools installed by default, or at least with a simple option in the setup. Maybe such a distribution would be better suited for you.

[LaurieT]

Thankyou--That does indeed do the trick.

Most useful also were your comments on various Linux distros.

Once more thanks, these were just the instructions I needed.

As you say so simple (when you know how).

[Maxus]

I install libxxf86vm-dev for 3DEngine work.
add in DEB pack plz.

[netmaestro]

@freak: I tried it on Ubuntu 9.10 and got the error message "sudo: apt: command not found". I just booted from the cd without installing linux if that makes a difference. Any ideas?

[freak]

> I just booted from the cd without installing linux if that makes a difference. Any ideas?

I don't think you can install additional packages when you are just running from the CD.

[netmaestro]

Ok, I'm going to install it beside windows and retry. Thanks for quick answer.

[netmaestro]

Off and running! Delving into the wondrous new world of Glib...

[jamba]

I use Arch, and I've just been running the IDE without install. haven't really had a need.

when I get some free time, I'll do an install, it looks pretty simple though. With package managers being as sophisticated as they are these days, installing dependencies isn't really a big deal.

If I get mine installed, maybe then I will make an Arch package for the AUR. But then I couldn't promise to maintain it. I guess the maintenance of the packages is the problem, huh?