search

JHGuitarFreak / UQM-MegaMod-Archived

UQM-HD Remastered plus a whole host of extra content and goodies
http://megamod.serosis.net
Other
21 stars 1 forks source link

Flatpak build for Linux #15

Open rlac opened 5 years ago

rlac commented 5 years ago

Are you interested in having a Flatpak build of UQM MegaMod for Linux?

I've created a build manifest and the files required for desktop integration (e.g. desktop launcher file) at https://github.com/rlac/flatpak-uqm-megamod. It could be integrated into the source if you're interested (maybe under build/flatpak?).

Distribution could possibly be done via Flathub, or alternatively be self hosted.

Something to consider though - if add-on content is included in the app package, it's not going to be possible for a user to add additional add-ons. Possible approaches I can think of are:

Do you have any preference? Is there any reason to not ship with all add-ons other than download size? (I've included just the basic content in my initial build file)

Serosis commented 5 years ago

An answer to your add-on question is that only one package is mandatory and a few actually conflict with each other. Technically the add-on directory should be user writable if I remember correctly. If not I can fix it in the next release.

I'm not quite Linux savvy so maybe you could suggest a directory in which to put the add-ons, config, and save files and I'll use that for future reference.

As for Flatpak, this is the first I've heard of it so I'll have to do some research. I also researched AppImage but that had the same issue with addons so i didn't go for it. But if I can make the program look into a specific directory outside of its packaging I don't see why it couldn't happen.

JoshuaPettus commented 5 years ago

Personally I much prefer AppImage, It doesn't require any dependencies which simplifies installation for those distros that don't have flatpack preinstalled. Yes you can install flatpack on most distros, but AppImage is just better in this regard. I say if you are going to go self contained, go all the way or we might all just as well stick with Debian and Red hat packaging. I just feel Flatpacks and Snaps don't really solve the problem, but who's asking me? You know the old joke about someone wanting to create a new standard to replace the 11 existing standards only to leave 12 competing standards? That's Flatpack and Snap in a nutshell. AppImage takes the publicly proven apple model and just works, leaving all that nonsense behind. There is no backend infrastructure.

But I'll get off my soap box

For the issue at hand, I suppose technically these self-contained distributions are all in the same boat as OSX's app bundle. Perhaps apple's solution of having APPs look for somewhere in the User's home directory for the extra data files would also be the solution for this issue?

andsoitgoes commented 5 years ago

@rlac - I commented on your github page, I really want to use your flatpak build but I’m having some issues, would love to get your help getting it to work. Thanks man!

rlac commented 5 years ago

I've had time to come back to this, and took a look at getting add-ons working through extensions.

It seems to work well - I've pushed an update to my repo in this commit which updates to 0.8.0.84 and has the voice & HD add-ons as extensions.

This will require an extension per add-on (or set of add-ons if they should be packaged together) but it's fairly trivial to define these.

Serosis commented 5 years ago

That's awesome news!

I'll definitely look into it but it's starting to seem like the best method for Linux distribution.