Linux version 1.1

[Talthanar]

Does this particular beast exist? I downloaded the 1.1 from the downloads section and didn't see it.

[Dominus]

If you are using Linux you should be knowledgable enough to compile it from the source code. The source code snapshot is also availlable from the download page.

[Talthanar]

Your advice rates up with RTFM without telling me which FM. Useless.

[Dominus]

well, if you don't know how to compile from source you probably shouldn't bother with linux.

[suraimu]

*rimshot*

[nadir]

Talthanar, download the source snapshot, untar/unzip it and read the INSTALL file. There is a LOT of documentation in there, so you should really read all of it.

[Simon Constable]

I think that the question is being mis-interpreted:-

"Does this particular beast exist? I downloaded the 1.1 from the downloads section and didn't see it."

In fact the original question doesn't actually make sense because it sounds similar to "I bought some carrots from the grocer but coudn't find them".

Maybe he's suggesting that downloading 1.1 results in downloading a different version number? I wouldn't know as I have stuck with the 1.0 CVS snapshot.

[Telemachos]

Dominus:
If the Exult CVS source could build without other modifications than a few paths then I would tend to agree with you. However, last I checked that was not the case

Just because I *can* compile it doen't mean I want to spend hours downloading and installing libs in order make it compile - just to test some nifty little open-source thing I found on the net. That might be Talthanars problem too. So with that in mind I too could see the benefit of a pre-build Linux executable.

Another suggestion would be to split out the customizable parts of the makefiles to a seperate file because I remember having troubles keeping my modified makefile conflict free when I updated the CVS - often causing me to just delete my own makefile, update the CVS and apply all my changes again

- Tele

[wjp]

> If the Exult CVS source could build without other modifications than a few paths then I
> would tend to agree with you. However, last I checked that was not the case

Really? CVS compiles without any errors for me in Linux, and no Makefile modifications should be necessary because of configure.

[fliptw]

I say: haw-haw.

A binary version would also include downloading of libs to get to work if you're having problems compiling it.

[Dominus]

Telemachos, sure getting Exult to compile with all the features requires a lot of libraries to download but it is quite manageable. And most of the team do it quite often (except Darke who always says that the last time he compiled Exult is ages ago )...
But you are right I reacted too harshly but then you really don't expect a linux user to voice such questions. And as we have no one on linux who wants to do daily/weekly snapshots I think you are forced to do your own builds. Besides I always got the feeling that linux people like to build on their own anyway

Rant on:
kind of off-topic, but in the time I've been with Exult I got the feeling lately that linux based systems are getting more and more windows like users who don't really know the ins and outs of their OS. But, well, put me in a linux environment and I wouldn't have a clue myself (I'm a Windows XP user )
Rant off

[Telemachos]

That's probably because the latest Linux distributions are getting *gasp* user-friendly!

- Tele

[Darke]

No! It can't be! *wideeyes*

Darke
(Who makes no comment as to the frequency and/or skill with which he compiles exult. *noddlenod*)

[suraimu]

I was thinking that too, but I was bored and went to install a copy of the new Redhat 8 on a second machine just to play around with it, and remembered why I hate linux when even after the fancy graphical installer finished, and the fancy graphical login prompt logged me in, the sound was -still- broken.

[nadir]

I am away for a couple of days and all this crap appears here

Here are my answers:

Exult is primarily developed under Linux, so it is very unlikely that it doesn't compile under it.

There are no binary builds of the CVS branch for Linux because no one bothers to provide them. Kirben does a great job on the Win32 builds, but no one has come forward to provide other builds.

Makefiles are not in CVS. Makefiles under Linux (and U*ix in general) are autogenerated from Makefile.in files which in turn are autogenerated by Makefile.am files. This is all part of our build mechanism based on autoconf/automake. Configure takes care of finding libraries, choosing paths, etc. Maybe you should do a ./configure --help to see what you need.

[Shanus]

Well I just updated from CVS just then, and there is no "configure" script.

Whats going on there???

- Shane

[nadir]

Oh dear, not again.....

You need to run autogen.sh which will generate configure for you

[Blah]

OKAY HERE IT IS.
To get exult to compile & install nicely under linux (with defaults) type this in the source path.

sh autogen.sh (makes it so you can configure)
./configure (checks libs & paths and whatnot) (to try out the experimental opengl do ./configure --enable-opengl)
make (compiles exult)
make install (installs exult, however you may want to package it for your distro and install it from that mainly so you can keep track of what you have installed) (checkinstall is a great program for those slackware users out there)

If it doesn't properly compile or configure, check that you have the required libs as stated in the documentation.

And that should be it. If the latest CVS doesn't compile when all the other CVS did, don't freak out. It's happened to me on a few rare occasions... and after all, it is a snapshot.