Ubuntu installation...

[aaronchall]

Greetings,

OK, after spending about an hour trying to make and install Angband from the source on Ubuntu (Karmic, 9.10) (academic pursuit more than anything), I finally realized that synaptic has it. I already created a .deb file (after much trial and error) but I said "screw it," and uninstalled my version and used the synaptic (3.0.9b).

How did I make this error? Synaptic lists the version like this 1:3.0.9b, so I thought it was an ancient version, and not the latest "stable" version (I would have seen it on the first glance if there weren't about 10 other packages that show up when searching for "angband").

Anyhow, thought I'd share my trials and tribulations with you...

Aaron

[Nick]

I don't know what the 1: is about.

You'll notice that the Ubuntu Software Center has a later version - 3.1.1.1626 for me, but that's on Lucid.

[AnonymousHero]

I wouldn't bother with distro packages if I were you.

IIRC, all you really need to do to be able to compile your own is to install the 'build-essential' package + dev-versions of whatever front-ends you want, so

*: build-essential
X11: libx11-dev
SDL: libsdl-image1.2-dev, libsdl-ttf2.0-dev
ncurses: libncurses5-dev

(version numbers may be slightly off, but you get the idea...)

I'd also recommend running configure with something like

./configure --prefix=$HOME/angband/3.1.2

(where 3.1.2 is the version.)

so that you can have multiple versions and you won't need to install anything as root and "pollute" your /usr/local.

[Magnate]

I wouldn't bother with distro packages if I were you.

Thanks!

3.1.2v2 has now been in Debian testing for a while, and should appear in the next automated port to Ubuntu.

@Nick: the "1:" is called an "epoch" number, and there's a convoluted explanation somewhere in Debian policy. My (poor) understanding is that it's there in case the package becomes a completely different game by the same name - something a major version number couldn't represent. That said, I've never seen any package starting with 2:, or any epoch greater than 1: ...

[AnonymousHero]

I wasn't insinuating anything about quality of the packages/packaging.

The major problem with distro packages is that you never know when they'll be updated, possibly obsoleting all your active characters. (Yes, you can "hold" packages in Debian/Ubuntu, but it's easy to forget. I speak from bitter, bitter experience.)

If you're a slow player, like me, this can be bad.

[Whelk]

The major problem with distro packages is that you never know when they'll be updated, possibly obsoleting all your active characters.

Yikes. Thanks for the warning. Didn't think about that.

[camlost]

I wasn't insinuating anything about quality of the packages/packaging.

The major problem with distro packages is that you never know when they'll be updated, possibly obsoleting all your active characters. (Yes, you can "hold" packages in Debian/Ubuntu, but it's easy to forget. I speak from bitter, bitter experience.)

If you're a slow player, like me, this can be bad.

Presumably, you can revert to an earlier version. Also, aren't save-file incompatibilities kept to a minimum?

[AnonymousHero]

Presumably, you can revert to an earlier version.

Reverting to old versions is often "advanced" package management and I'm not sure if any of the graphical front-ends for apt actually have any functionality for that.

I do know that aptitude at least lets you revert to an older version which has been installed at some point. However, I'm not sure how long such packages "stick around".

Also, aren't save-file incompatibilities kept to a minimum?

I tend to prefer to play characters through the same game, not switching games midstream. Just to pick a random example FA 1.0.x and FA 1.1.x play quite differently -- it would be weird (to me!) if a character started out in FA 1.0.x and completed the game in FA 1.1.x. Others may feel differently.

[saw]

I wouldn't bother with distro packages if I were you.

IIRC, all you really need to do to be able to compile your own is to install the 'build-essential' package + dev-versions of whatever front-ends you want, so

Yeah... Someone suggested this to me in another thread, and I made the mistake of trying it under Ubuntu 10 (Lucid). BAD IDEA. The Debian packages and essential build pieces have the cross references different and what ended up happening was a mess of galactic proportions. My entire package directory became corrupt, and it was impossible to use the Update Manager anymore. Even Synaptic couldn't fix the problem...

If you're using Ubuntu... stick with the approved build. Even if something more recent would WORK, unless you are VERY knowledgeable, I wouldn't recommend trying anything else.

[AnonymousHero]

What? That sounds like you did something really weird. I've never had the package database go wonky in years of using Ubuntu/Debian.

If you install to /usr/local i don't even see how that could possibly happen without you doing something really weird (unrelated to building and installing Angband).

[LostTemplar]

I had no problems installing angband under ubuntu manually.