Source
r/roguelikes•
akmark

Roguelike Packaging

I'm just curious to how people would prefer a new roguelike packaged? Are people okay compiling from source, or what sorts of packages would you prefer to get them in? I am more asking r/roguelikes here more than anything else. How do people usually get roguelikes on macs? (I've never owned a mac). I'm talking more like crawl or nethack with a curses interface.

P.S. The sidebar has an error:

The official unofficial /r/rogulikes IRC: ##reddit-roguelikes @irc.freenode.net

Posted Dec 16, 2011, 5:10 PM UTC

532
[deleted]•

People are definitely not okay compiling from the source! Even with programming knowledge, having to compile a game just to see what it's like is a major turnoff. Having to compile your own programs is a dinosaur Linux philosophy from the early days.

11
DuineAnaithnid•

There are packages for linux as well, like .deb and .rpm. You can also create compilation and installer scripts that yu simply execute and it takes care of the compiling for you.

To the OP, why not both? Make packages for the systems you want/can and release the source for everyone else.

1
[deleted]•

Yes, I know that. What I'm talking about is just releasing only the source to a game and expecting more than about 5 people to want to play it.

5
akmarkOP•

This is what I wanted to hear, I mean I see a roguelike and I grab the source and compile it in about two seconds while I read the HOWTOPLAY before giving it a shot. What's comfortable to me is not comfortable to many other people which is why I made this post.

5
ido•

Linux users are kinda used to compiling, that's the main schism you'll encounter.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

5
akmarkOP•

The reason why you would distribute it as a compile on your computer sort of setup is that different versions of OS's may package handle similar things in different enough ways that if you tried to copy and paste one version to another it could not end up working. Since lots of developers don't actually have a ton of ways to test if it runs on exactly your machine if it compiles on your machine it is more likely to run then just a prepacked executable. Things like roguelikes (where it is made by one guy in a short period of time) are close to this sort of concept at heart.

EDIT: Compiling prepackaged sources isn't that hard, as long as you have the tools to do it. Many people don't.

8
Tychotesla•

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't you supply the compile and put up a note asking people to give you the builds for the system they compile it for, all of which you then put in one easily found and easily searchable place?

That seems both accessible to lay people using non-Windows OSes like myself, and not particularly troublesome for developers. You gain the benefit of supporting every platform by distributing the effort to the people who know how to make that effort in the first place.

"If your OS is not supported already and you make a build for it from this compile, please send that build or a link to it to [email protected] for inclusion in this list."

1
akmarkOP•

It's true, but this is more of an interest check. I know how I like my roguelikes, tarballed with a side of makefile. This is still more trying to gauge everyone else. I prefer precompiled stuff for things other than roguelikes but compiling it always seemed to be part of the experience to me. Anyway, I really thank you and everyone else for the input!

1
ido•

different versions of OS's may package handle similar things in different enough ways that if you tried to copy and paste one version to another it could not end up working.

That's basically only an issue on linux & co. On windows & mac you can generally trust your bins to work out of the box for pretty much everyone.

1
cactus•

As a programmer, I hate when there are no binaries. I've never once gone through the trouble of compiling an app/game - I either google for the binary in hopes that someone else did it, or I just don't use the product.

6
[deleted]•

Windows binary, preferably not inside a zip.

5
ripter•

I'm on a mac. Applications are a special folder structure so the entire thing is a single game.app

I don't mind installing from source as long as it uses a standard make file. But a single .exe or .app is the best.

4
akmarkOP•

Thanks! I have only used macs in passing but never got to like them.

1
npnth•

Oh, fine. I'll be that guy. I run Gentoo and Arch, and about half my stuff on Arch is compiled from ABS. Distributing your fancy little Eee Ecks Eees* is all fine for you, but if there isn't a source tarball as well I'm going to be pretty skeptical.

^* Imagine me making finger quotes in the air and rolling my eyes. You can also imagine me in thick, black-rimmed glasses and a scarf, sipping an overpriced Latte if you want.

2
skeeto•

I'm that guy too, except Ubuntu/Debian -- I did use Gentoo for about 6 months once. I prefer building right from the source repository, so the best "packaging" is having a clean, well-documented build from a Git repository. DCSS is the best example of this.

1
FalseMyrmidon•
  • Imagine me making finger quotes in the air and rolling my eyes. You can also imagine me in thick, black-rimmed glasses and a scarf, sipping an overpriced Latte if you want.

Is it OK if I also imagine you in a Starbucks most likely with several Apple products to show how nonconformist you are?

1
npnth•

Absolutely not. I only use products from Dell and HP - ironically, of course.

3
Ectospheno•

Given how easy it is to have multiple operating systems installed thanks to virtualbox there really isn't any reason you can't distribute your project in the preferred package format for every popular operating system. Throw in a source download for those people who get a warm and fuzzy from seeing it (despite never downloading it) and you are good to go.

2
akmarkOP•

I can't build for Mac for instance, and there are plenty of reasons why shit may go haywire even between Windows builds (think of the security restrictions added in Vista) and trying to make it play nicely and cleanly without giving obscure errors is sometimes tricky at best. Again I was talking more on roguelikes rather than every software package ever.

2
gcross•

That approach isn't easy at all if you don't own licenses for every operating system for which you want to package your program.

1
FalseMyrmidon•

I work in IT and have compiled things from source before on occasion. For something recreational like this there would have to be a damn good reason for me to take the extra time. I mean I could be watching porn or looking at pictures of cats instead.

2
[deleted]•

It's nice to be able to compile it... if it actually builds out of the box. On Windows, I like to have a simple zip file containing the binaries and data. Installers suck when you're looking to put a game on a removable drive and carry it around.

2
ido•

Installers suck when you're looking to put a game on a removable drive and carry it around.

Right, but when I'm home I don't wanna fuck around with creating directories and deciding where to put it, and then look for the zip file (where does my browser even put those) and unpack it, etc...Just let me execute it and install it wherever it wants & just put shortcuts in the usual places on my desktop & start menu.

In fact even better would be if it's html5/flash/unity and i can just play it by clicking a link and don't have to mess around with installers or exes at all.

1
[deleted]•

Right, but when I'm home I don't wanna fuck around with creating directories and deciding where to put it, and then look for the zip file (where does my browser even put those) and unpack it, etc...Just let me execute it and install it wherever it wants & just put shortcuts in the usual places on my desktop & start menu.

Personally I'd rather not have my computer shat on in any case, but obviously there are lots of less technical users who who would greatly prefer an installer. Ideally a dev should provide a zip and installer for windows, one of those app bundles or whatever for Mac, and binary/source tarballs (or a combined tarball) for Linux. Maybe even .deb and .rpm packages, and you'd be a sweetheart if you put a pkgbuild in the AUR.

EDIT: And letting people pull from version control is great.

1
Musaab•

For Windows, I prefer a binary executable.

2
colig•

Not all roguelikes are open source.

1
Aversiste•

As I'm an OpenBSD user I like when sources are distributed with a really working Makefile and not some crazy scripts that works only on certain flavours of Linux.

1
akmarkOP•

Agreed, if I was to release source it would probably be a very straightforward makefile.

1
ido•

  • exe installer for windows (and have the installer ask me as few questions as possible - just install it to a default location and put shortcuts in the usual places).

  • dmg image with an app inside for mac os x - I will drag it to whereever I want to install it to.

  • 32 & 64bit bins that have everything reasonable statically compiled (you can expect me to have stuff like SDL already installed) for linux. Make sure you don't have any weird ass dependency & if you do try to statically compile it into the bin.

1
Tuerai•

as a pc user, i would only play it if there was a readily available .exe i could complie it. i know how. but i won't. not unless you already have a huge fanbase and screenshots and long forum posts about how it's just gobs of fun. at which point someone will have compiled it for me.

1
akmarkOP•

Thanks for your input on this old post, all of the posts on this helped add quite a bit of needed perspective!

1
[deleted]•

Mac owner checking in. One .app please.

0