Git/Glulxe patch for Gargoyle on Linux
Emily Boegheim
recent Glulx games. I've compiled updated versions of Git and Glulxe for
Gargoyle on Linux, which fix these bugs. You can download the patch zip
from http://mirror.ifarchive.org/if-archive/interpreters-
multi/gargoyle/gargoyle-2007-07-22-linux-update.zip. Just unzip it and copy
the "git" and "glulxe" files into your Gargoyle directory, overwriting the
files currently there.
If you're using Gargoyle on Windows and have been having problems with this
bug, Matthew Twomey compiled an equivalent patch for you a few months ago.
You can find it here: http://mirror.ifarchive.org/if-archive/interpreters-
multi/gargoyle/gargoyle-2007-04-18-windows-update.zip.
Emily
Eric Forgeot
> As you probably know, the last release of Gargoyle has a bug with some
> recent Glulx games. I've compiled updated versions of Git and Glulxe for
> Gargoyle on Linux, which fix these bugs. You can download the patch zip
Great, will it be included in the official website soon ?
Emily Boegheim
news:46a92500$0$16804$426a...@news.free.fr:
Not that I know of. Matthew and I compiled and released the patches
privately; we asked Tor's permission to release them, to be polite, but
that was all the involvement Tor had.
You could always email him and ask him to update Gargoyle (and
Spatterlight). He has said before that he no longer has time to maintain
them, but this is a pretty simple update, so he might.
The other possibility is that someone else take over maintaining
Gargoyle and/or Spatterlight. They're GPLed, so this could done. I've
thought about it. But I'm pretty sure my C/C++ skills aren't up to
scratch for that, even if I were just updating the interpreters and not
doing anything about the UI. And no one else has volunteered yet.
Emily
Eric Forgeot
> You could always email him and ask him to update Gargoyle (and
> Spatterlight). He has said before that he no longer has time to maintain
> them, but this is a pretty simple update, so he might.
> scratch for that, even if I were just updating the interpreters and not
> doing anything about the UI. And no one else has volunteered yet.
>
As far as I'm concerned, I think Gargoyle is already very good and complete
as it is. But it should at least incorporate the latest updates of the
differents interpreters inside it. For example I think there was a release
of the Adrift interpreter, Scare, which is not yet included into Gargoyle.
I don't know if the Git patch fixes all the bugs we encountered, but at the
moment I would privilegiate the use of Glulxe instead of Git.
I've made a Linux Debian package of Gargoyle, including your git / glulxe
fix, it's there :
http://ifiction.free.fr/fichiers/gargoyle_i386.deb (and the default glulx
interpreter is glulxe, not git).
I've made an automatic rpm from the debian package, it's probably not very
clean, but it should work :
http://ifiction.free.fr/fichiers/gargoyle-2006_09_17_patched2007_07-23.i386.rpm
Matthew
wrote:
> Emily Boegheim wrote:
> > You could always email him and ask him to update Gargoyle (and
> > Spatterlight). He has said before that he no longer has time to maintain
> > them, but this is a pretty simple update, so he might.
> > scratch for that, even if I were just updating the interpreters and not
> > doing anything about the UI. And no one else has volunteered yet.
At one point Tor did actually indicate to me that he would post a
package with the updated interpreters. So I emailed it to him along
with diffs of my changes to the original sources (in case he wanted to
redo it). It's probably just a matter of when he gets to it.
Thanks,
-Matt
Juan M. Méndez
wrote:
> Emily Boegheim wrote:
> > You could always email him and ask him to update Gargoyle (and
> > Spatterlight). He has said before that he no longer has time to maintain
> > them, but this is a pretty simple update, so he might.
> > scratch for that, even if I were just updating the interpreters and not
> > doing anything about the UI. And no one else has volunteered yet.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, I think Gargoyle is already very good and complete
> as it is. But it should at least incorporate the latest updates of the
> differents interpreters inside it. For example I think there was a release
> of the Adrift interpreter, Scare, which is not yet included into Gargoyle.
>
> I don't know if the Git patch fixes all the bugs we encountered, but at the
> moment I would privilegiate the use of Glulxe instead of Git.
>
> I've made a Linux Debian package of Gargoyle, including your git / glulxe
> interpreter is glulxe, not git).
>
> I've made an automatic rpm from the debian package, it's probably not very
Hello Eric,
Do you plan to add it to the official Debian package system? I think
it would be a great
addition.
Greetings from another Debian user,
Juan
Emily Boegheim
news:1188996715.7...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
I'm pretty sure Debian wouldn't accept it, unfortunately - some of the
interpreters Gargoyle is based on are not open source.
Ubuntu's Multiverse repository might take it...
Emily
Eric Forgeot
> I'm pretty sure Debian wouldn't accept it, unfortunately - some of the
> interpreters Gargoyle is based on are not open source.
>
no, it wouldn't matter. Inform is not OpenSource, but it's in the debian
repositories (in the "nonfree" section). Debian can accept in this section
things as closed as the flash player for exemple. The interpreters wouldn't
be a problem either. What is more annoying is the use of fmod, which is not
free either, but I think Debian could accept it, it just wouldn't be
possible to have this package on all architectures (I couldn't compile
Gargoyle on powerpc because of this).
But Juan is right, I may try to propose this to the official package system,
because Gargoyle is very nice. I may propose zoom as well.
About gargoyle I just fear they won't accept it because I don't want to
bother recompile it from source since the binaries are available (also
because of the fmod issue)
Ming Hua
> Emily Boegheim wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure Debian wouldn't accept it, unfortunately - some of the
> > interpreters Gargoyle is based on are not open source.
>
> no, it wouldn't matter. Inform is not OpenSource, but it's in the debian
> repositories (in the "nonfree" section). Debian can accept in this section
> things as closed as the flash player for exemple.
Debian accepts inform6 into the repository because (1) It is
redistributable; and (2) It can be compiled from source. The flash
plugin package in Debian is actually just an installer, and pulls the
real plugin from Adobe's website when it is installed. So it is not
quite correct to say "Debian will accept things as closed as flash
plugin into their non-free repository."
I've not read Gargoyle's license, but I assume it's not as simple as
inform6. Also as far as I know Gargoyle include pieces from other
softwares, so it's probably a quite complicated situation.
> The interpreters wouldn't
> be a problem either. What is more annoying is the use of fmod, which is not
> free either, but I think Debian could accept it, it just wouldn't be
> possible to have this package on all architectures (I couldn't compile
> Gargoyle on powerpc because of this).
IMHO software without source has absolutely no chance to be accepted
by Debian these days. Ubuntu's multiverse repository has less
restrictive requirements, but close inspection of the license(s) is
still needed.
Ming
2007.09.10
Emily Boegheim
news:1189442248.9...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
> I've not read Gargoyle's license, but I assume it's not as simple as
> inform6. Also as far as I know Gargoyle include pieces from other
> softwares, so it's probably a quite complicated situation.
Gargoyle itself is under the GPL, but the TADS and Hugo interpreters and
the Luxi fonts are each under their own freeware licenses. I don't know how
much of a problem this would be. The TADS interpreter can be compiled from
source, and I believe the Hugo one as well. In any case, the source for
each of the interpreters is included in the Gargoyle source package.
Emily