Linux: NME installation script as recommended method on haxe.org/download?

[Cambiata]

Hoy!

I've been doing some Ubuntu 12.04 32-bit installations when expreimenting with virtualization, and during this I've found out that Joshua's installation script for Haxe/NME on http://www.haxenme.org/download/ is the far simplest way of installing the latest versions of Haxe/Neko.
(The ppa:eyecreate/haxe repo doesn't seem to work now.)

Because of that, I've some info about this on the http://haxe.org/download page.

What do you think about this? Ok to reference to a "thirdpart tool" like NME on the main download page?
If not, I will remove it at once!

Please note that I haven't tried this on 64-bit machines!

/ Jonas

[Andreas Mokros]

Hi.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 13:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Cambiata <jona...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please note that I haven't tried this on 64-bit machines!

Maybe you should add this to your info?

--
Mockey

[j...@justinfront.net]

Cambiata

I want to try to keep this page a bit cleaner so that haxe install does not appear difficult to install so we can appeal to less techy windows and mac users without scaring them off before they have started, we had a recent clear up of the page not long ago as it was beginning to become very convoluted which does not provide new users with a clear and simple message.

I have moved your notes to the manual page and just added a direct link on the linux download entry.

• Download Linux Installer or using Linux nme installation script

 

I hope this is acceptable. Historically there are other issues in relation to the large amount of NME questions on the IRC, that are often setup related and are probably the reason haxe has not yet moved to just using the NME install.

But as the NME product matures I think the NME install maybe a direction worth considering for all targets but maybe not just yet, in my opinion.

obviously if you disagree with my change to the page please feel free to revert.

Best

Justin

--
To post to this group haxe...@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/haxelang?hl=en
 
 
 

[Left Right]

A grudging side-note.
It is important to warn the users that NME is not installable on
RHEL-like distros (their installation script is using many
Debian-specific stuff). Not sure about Arch or Gentoo, but I would
imagine that it wouldn't fit there well too.
After some poking around I couldn't get it to work on Fedora, even
after I've found the what I believe are the analogous libraries and
programs to those which it uses.

Best.

Oleg

[Cambiata]

I hope this is acceptable.

That's great! :-) The reason I asked was just to get opinions from others when it comes to an important page like this, combined with the fact that this method is the single one that hasn't caused any issues for me - it just workes out of the box...

[j...@justinfront.net]

This is obvious but there is an issues list for both repositories, and
they love you to submit patches rather than just bugs :) !

Does someone wants to try to create a linux matrix with tested
approaches that would obviously be amazing...just won't be me :) or
clarify the new text on the manual install page then that would be
great, but if you get too detailed you only end up with information
that is out of date next time you look, I think offering two options
and details of manual install will help most linux users, I get the
impression linux users are normally a fairly smart bunch of users.

[whitetigle]

If you manually install haxe + nme it should work on both fuduntu
(fedora based) and arch ( well at least it was the case a few months ago;) )

Le 14/10/2012 01:54, Left Right a �crit :

--
ThinkSlow -
cross-platform gaming experiments

( who ? why ? what ? ) -> http://thinkslow.net
( how ? when ? ) -> http://blog.thinkslow.net

[Left Right]

For me, after a bunch of trial and error, there's a conflict about
pcre library. This is if I install nekovm via RPM. The nekovm that NME
is trying to install in its install script is not installable in
Fedora in principle. I've asked at NME forum, but didn't get much info
from there. http://www.haxenme.org/community/forums/installing-nme/cant-install-fedora-core-17-amd64/
here's the thread on NME's forum.
Compiling neko on 64-bit Linux looks too difficult to me (I'm getting
too many incompatible includes, unknown compiler options etc, and I'm
just not good at understanding GCC / don't know how to compile a
32-bit program on 64-bit Linux at all).

I don't really know what do you mean by installing HaXe manually... do
you mean running HaXe install script (it would be manual as opposed to
installing by using a package manager), or manually copying all HaXe
files, creating symlinks etc? In any case, installing HaXe was not a
problem either way. The problem is in nekovm being incompatible with
NME (the one I could get from RPM).

Best.

Oleg

[Andreas Mokros]

Hi.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:18:28 +0200
Left Right <olegs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Compiling neko on 64-bit Linux looks too difficult to me (I'm getting
> too many incompatible includes, unknown compiler options etc, and I'm
> just not good at understanding GCC / don't know how to compile a
> 32-bit program on 64-bit Linux at all).

Why would you compile the 32-bit version on 64-bit Linux?
Compiling 64-bit neko always was the easiest option for me on 64-bit
Linux. Basically you need the dependencies listed here:
http://haxe.org/doc/build/neko_linux#debian-ubuntu
the Fedora equivalents that is,
the source from SVN and then run make...

--
Mockey

[Left Right]

> Why would you compile the 32-bit version on 64-bit Linux?

It uses compiler flags only available on 32-bit platform... not
finding any better documentation I assumed that is a requirement. I'm
talking specifically about -WBsymbolic. You don't have it on 64-bit
gcc.

> Compiling 64-bit neko always was the easiest option for me on 64-bit
> Linux. Basically you need the dependencies listed here:
> http://haxe.org/doc/build/neko_linux#debian-ubuntu

yeah... that's the problem... HaXe assumes Debian-like packages and
naming schemes. I need to redo it all by hand to match whatever's
needed on RHEL. RHEL uses slightly different convention for library
names (an easy part), but some libraries are completely different from
Debian (and that's where I'm at a loss). For example, the "easy"
includes -devel suffix instead of -dev. The difficult includes pcre
library, which is just not compatible with Neko, no matter what I
tried.

> the source from SVN and then run make...
>

Ha-ha... I wish it was that simple. There's also a real hell with
includes because some of them clash with the headers I have on my
system and GCC just won't use the ones form HaXe, or maybe whoever
wrote the Makefile had those headers in the global system include
directory, but assumed everyone else will have them in the same place.
When compiling, I got stuck with Apache httpd. I just happen to have
newer headers then those HaXe relies on for building the Apache
module, and it's a can of worms, every time I tried to "patch"
something as in adding / blacklisting a directory with headers, I'd
spoor new problem. So I just gave up.

Again, I'm absolutely no good at compiling complicated C projects.
Perhaps someone more proficient would be able to solve the conflicts,
but that just goes over my head.

Best.

Oleg

[Niel Drummond]

I have neko running on a CentOS5 64-bit version. Though, now that I'm looking at it, it doesn't seem to link to any of the 'optional' stuff like pcre and apache.. though I wouldn't think it is more than tweaking that curious build file src/tools/install.neko point it to the right headers and off you go...  

- Niel

[Andreas Mokros]

Hi.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:08:38 +0200
Left Right <olegs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm talking specifically about -WBsymbolic. You don't have it on
> 64-bit gcc.

Do you really get a gcc error about -WBsymbolic?
BTW: According to Google -WBsymbolic is apparently exclusively used by
Neko. A bit strange. Maybe it's a typo? I see there is -Bsymbolic. But
that should work on 64bit...

> yeah... that's the problem... HaXe assumes Debian-like packages and
> naming schemes. I need to redo it all by hand to match whatever's
> needed on RHEL. RHEL uses slightly different convention for library
> names (an easy part), but some libraries are completely different from
> Debian (and that's where I'm at a loss). For example, the "easy"
> includes -devel suffix instead of -dev. The difficult includes pcre
> library, which is just not compatible with Neko, no matter what I
> tried.

What error did you get there?

> Ha-ha... I wish it was that simple. There's also a real hell with
> includes because some of them clash with the headers I have on my
> system and GCC just won't use the ones form HaXe, or maybe whoever
> wrote the Makefile had those headers in the global system include
> directory, but assumed everyone else will have them in the same place.

Are Fedora include-directories that different from other Linuxes?

> When compiling, I got stuck with Apache httpd. I just happen to have
> newer headers then those HaXe relies on for building the Apache
> module, and it's a can of worms, every time I tried to "patch"
> something as in adding / blacklisting a directory with headers, I'd
> spoor new problem. So I just gave up.

What tells you that you have newer headers? Again: What error did you
get there?

> Again, I'm absolutely no good at compiling complicated C projects.
> Perhaps someone more proficient would be able to solve the conflicts,
> but that just goes over my head.

Fedora 17 you have? I might install it on a virtual machine for a try...

--
Mockey

[Andreas Mokros]

Hi.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:59:05 +0200
Niel Drummond <niel.d...@grumpytoad.org> wrote:
> though I wouldn't think it is more than tweaking that
> curious build file src/tools/install.neko point it to the right
> headers and off you go...

That's right, the libs are compiled with install.neko.

--
Mockey

[Left Right]

> Do you really get a gcc error about -WBsymbolic?
> BTW: According to Google -WBsymbolic is apparently exclusively used by
> Neko. A bit strange. Maybe it's a typo? I see there is -Bsymbolic. But
> that should work on 64bit...

Yes, that's how I've discovered that options is not supported. I would
have no idea otherwise. :D -symbolic in any incarnation is not
recognized by GCC 4.7. I found some mention of it at a mailing list
from few years ago, where the person describing this option said that
it is only supported on certain platforms, and amd64 was not listed
there. But I don't even know what the option means. man gcc says this
about it:

-symbolic
Bind references to global symbols when building a shared
object. Warn about any unresolved references
(unless overridden by the link editor option -Xlinker -z
-Xlinker defs). Only a few systems support
this option.

Which sounds like a friendly AI exercising its skills in completing
ambiguous sentences in natural language.

>
> What error did you get there?

At the very start it couldn't find any include, so I started looking
for what may possibly be missing. Eventually, first missing include
was the one from Apache, and so I did yum install apache2-devel or
whichever was required - and woo-hoo, I've got a version that cannot
compile with HaXe. The difference, so far I could understand is in
some Apache-runtime thing... please don't ask me what it is, all I
know it is a header with some cryptic three-letter name, which I
immediately forgot. The thing about it, Apache decided to dedicate a
special project to that runtime. It used to be included with httpd
project, but it is no more. So, the includes in HaXe directories
"think" that Apache runtime is in the same directory as httpd sources,
but in actuality it's somewhere else.

>
> Are Fedora include-directories that different from other Linuxes?

I think they are typical of RHEL, must be very similar to RHEL as this
is a community edition of it. But the problem is that Debian is very
far behind RHEL in a sense of versions of the packages it provides. So
without ever really wanting to, I'm way ahead of the Debian users :)
using all new and shiny kernel 3.5 and other very advanced
technologies... with the downside being, well, complete disarray :)

>
> What tells you that you have newer headers? Again: What error did you
> get there?

See above, Apache runtime vs httpd.

>
> Fedora 17 you have? I might install it on a virtual machine for a try...
>

Yup, would be cool if you do. Also, take a look here, if you will get
to it: http://pastebin.com/hx1sTZ6M this was my attempt at patching
NME installer script so that it would fit both RHEL and Debain. I
think it's almost there already.

Most interestingly is that there exists a version of nekovm
installable and functioning on Fedora - so it must be possible to
compile it (I can get it with yum). But it will not work with NME -
will try to load 32-bit binaries for some reason. Also, if you are
unfamiliar with typical building / installation process on RHEL, it
would be done with yum-builddep tool. It is supposed to be "smart"
enough to understand the makefile and to download the required
dependencies etc. So "ideally" if anyone ever will design a workflow
for building nekovm on that platform, then, it is good to use that
tool; or at least that would be a good indicator of the typical
problems a user like myself will encounter :)

Best.

Oleg