hello, im interested in playing around with this
first,i admit im probably a noob
im on linux (antix/debian)
cant get it to compile, stuck at sackit, after i installed a load of crap packages :)
would be easier if i would have a linux binary already compiled
im planning on some testing with all textures,fog,effects removed
thats if i can get it to work, if someone is willing to walk me all the way through compiling or provide a binary
im aiming for that grandma rig, performance load
please help
linux binary
-
Marisa Kirisame
Deuced Up - Posts: 152
- Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 10:52 pm
"grandma's got an alienware - i ain't 'fraid of nothin'" -- Ben Aksoy
If your grandma has a GMA 3150 netbook, get her a Pi 3. Cheaper and better.
For sackit, all you need is a compiled libsackit.a and sackit.h - copy those to iceball/xlibinc/ . If it complains about app_jack.c missing a bunch of things, you've compiled more than you have to. But that's OK, you just need those two files (libsackit.a is what you build).
We do not compile linux binaries as different systems have different library versions + featuresets which have different dependencies, and to be blunt, building binaries for Linux + bundling all the dependencies + adding in a launcher script is a pain in the arse.
If your grandma has a GMA 3150 netbook, get her a Pi 3. Cheaper and better.
For sackit, all you need is a compiled libsackit.a and sackit.h - copy those to iceball/xlibinc/ . If it complains about app_jack.c missing a bunch of things, you've compiled more than you have to. But that's OK, you just need those two files (libsackit.a is what you build).
We do not compile linux binaries as different systems have different library versions + featuresets which have different dependencies, and to be blunt, building binaries for Linux + bundling all the dependencies + adding in a launcher script is a pain in the arse.
longbyte1 wrote:We should move on to create our own replicas of AoS instead (call them "tributes" if you'd like): we learn far more and take far less time making it ourselves than trying to reverse engineer a heavily obfuscated, hand-optimized work of art.
will probably try building again
i dont consider myself a very linux savvy but i managed dependencies versions before
but compiling some specific projects just seem too far
when i have something with lots of dependencies i just get the .so and it usually works, but i have the binary
it would lower the entry barrier to users
i dont consider myself a very linux savvy but i managed dependencies versions before
but compiling some specific projects just seem too far
when i have something with lots of dependencies i just get the .so and it usually works, but i have the binary
it would lower the entry barrier to users
-
Marisa Kirisame
Deuced Up - Posts: 152
- Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 10:52 pm
Say, I wonder if there's an issue on GitHub pertaining to making the sackit step easier... because if it wasn't for that step, building it would basically mean doing "step 1, install dev dependencies; step 2, run make".
I suspect the best approach for sackit would be to just import it into the main Iceball source tree and update it manually.
The current docs are sloppy because we wrote roughly the same thing in a lot of different places because nobody could be fucked reading them in the places that they were or something like that, and things have changed since a lot of the documentation was written.
But yeah, let us know when you've had another shot at it, if sackit's the only thing you're struggling with, you should have it working pretty soon.
I suspect the best approach for sackit would be to just import it into the main Iceball source tree and update it manually.
The current docs are sloppy because we wrote roughly the same thing in a lot of different places because nobody could be fucked reading them in the places that they were or something like that, and things have changed since a lot of the documentation was written.
But yeah, let us know when you've had another shot at it, if sackit's the only thing you're struggling with, you should have it working pretty soon.
longbyte1 wrote:We should move on to create our own replicas of AoS instead (call them "tributes" if you'd like): we learn far more and take far less time making it ourselves than trying to reverse engineer a heavily obfuscated, hand-optimized work of art.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests