[DOWNLOAD] Packages of Code::Blocks in your linux distro

[kai]

yep. right. you can start codeblocks using the command "codeblocks --prefix=/" . This should be fixed in the package however. So please change it to be installed to /opt (as codeblocks expects it to be there). although i'd personally prefer it to be in /usr/share, but then you have to change the default directory in the source code (or install a startscript) - but i'm also not an ubuntu package specialist, so i don't know what is the right way.

kai

[mandrav]

So please change it to be installed to /opt (as codeblocks expects it to be there). although i'd personally prefer it to be in /usr/share,

C::B uses autotools and therefore defaults to /usr/local. I don't understand why you mention /opt...

[kai]

when i install C::B from that ubuntu package I get the following message after starting it:

"Cannot find /opt/codeblocks/share/codeblocks/resources.zip...
Code::Blocks was configured to be installed in '/opt/codeblocks/share/codeblocks'.
Please use the command-line switch '--prefix' or set the CODEBLOCKS_DATA_DIR environment variable to point where Code::Blocks is installed,
or try re-installing the application..."

but C::B still doesn't seem to work properly, i get the following messages
(codeblocks:11440): GnomePrintCupsPlugin-WARNING **: iconv does not support ppd character encoding: ISOLatin1, trying CSISOLatin1
addr2line: 'codeblocks': No such file
addr2line: 'codeblocks': No such file
(and about 20 more of the "no such file")

It crashes on closing, but i haven't tried out a lot yet.

[mandrav]

when i install C::B from that ubuntu package

We provide no linux packages. Search who made it and maybe he can help you. He probably didn't use the default installation directory.
Sorry...

It's easy to build C::B though. Maybe you should try it.

[takeshimiya]

This is the first package i ever built, but since it doesn't do anything fancy (just copying all files to their appropriate places) it shouldn't do any harm to your PC.

So, anyone with more experience with Ubuntu packages can correct it?

In any case, here are links on how to build packages in Ubuntu:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperResources
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU
http://women.alioth.debian.org/wiki/index.php/English/PackagingTutorial

[kai]

We provide no linux packages. Search who made it and maybe he can help you. He probably didn't use the default installation directory.
Sorry...

yes, but this thread is about packages, isn't it? 

It's easy to build C::B though. Maybe you should try it.

will do

[che]

when i install C::B from that ubuntu package

We provide no linux packages. Search who made it and maybe he can help you. He probably didn't use the default installation directory.
Sorry...

It's easy to build C::B though. Maybe you should try it.

I have tried it with no success at all by the moment. Please, someone could give some advice? I cannot find a proper Makefile. I am not familiar with automake, so what to do?

Thanks!

[Charon]

sorry, i didn't see that there were new posts in this thread, else i would have answered earlier.

actually i think i now where this problem is comming from :-(

if configured C::B with the option "--prefix=/opt/codeblocks".
well, i then built the *.deb, installed it and thought "woohoo, it works!".
mh, i just didn't think about the fact that i had still the whole C::B-directory in /opt...
so no wonder it isn't complaining on my notebook :-(

i am really ashamed about my stupid mistake. will have a look at this on the weekend.

sorry
Markus

[Azriphale]

Markus,

Thanks for doing all the work of making the Ubuntu Breezy .deb, I was having trouble getting Code::Blocks to compile (well, ./configure was being stupid and I couldn't fix it)

I have fixed the problem with the Ubuntu Breezy .deb
I do not, however, have any webspace on which to put the deb, so here are instructions on how I fixed it:

The '$' denotes astandard user's console.

Code

$ dpkg -x codeblocks-1.0rc2.deb codeblocks-1.0rc2
$ mkdir codeblocks-1.0rc2/DEBIAN
$ dpkg -e codeblocks-1.0rc2.deb codeblocks-1.0rc2/DEBIAN
$ cd codeblocks-1.0rc2
$ mkdir opt
$ mkdir opt/codeblocks
$ mv share opt/codeblocks
$ cd ..
$ mv codeblocks-1.0rc2.deb codeblocks-1.0rc2-orig.deb
$ dpkg --build codeblocks-1.0rc2

Simon

[Neumann]

Hello all,

I hereby announce the avalability of Code::Blocks 1.0rc2 deb for Debian Sid and Ubuntu Breezy.  They are not, by Debian standard, perfect packages, but they build and install fine on my box.  I expect that the Debian package will also install fine on an Etch-based system, and, to a lesser, I think the package for Ubuntu should also work on an Ubuntu Dapper based system.  The Debian package will *not* work on a Sarge based box due to the unavalability of wxWidget 2.6 in the main archive.

Frederico Mameri has stood volunteer to update the package in the future.  I've assured him of my collaboration if required.  That means all feature request (for the package, not in CB itself) will be redirected to him.  He seems motivated and competent.  I've got some other packages and projects to handle so I think it's better for CB if somebody like him take over.

But, AFAIK, I can still provide distro-specific package for Etch, Dapper and Sarge since they all share the same sources and building is easy.  I'll monitor the forum for a few days for any requests of that kind.

The Debian packages are available at:

http://neutronic.mine.nu/unstable

(this is an apt repository if anyone cares: deb http://neutronic.mine.nu/unstable ./)

The Ubuntu packages are available at:

http://neutronic.mine.nu/ubuntu-breezy

(this is *not* and apt repository so take the .deb directly)

[takeshimiya]

Would it be difficult to make these packages available in official repositories?

[Neumann]

Right now? yes, probably.

I'm not an official Debian Developer so I cannot upload the package right away in the repository.  I would need a sponsor, a Debian Developer willing to check and upload my packages for me.

That's a semi-easy task to find a sponsor, but once you find one, he is more or less the boss of you.  He willl request to fix the errors and warnings and might request a reorganization of the package if he judges it necessary since he is the one that got the upload power.  I've got not time and little intereste to go throught that.  Frederico (or somebody else), might want to do that in the near future but that will probably take a while.

In Ubuntu case: I think the Debian unstable repository is periodically synched with the Dapper universe repository.  That means once the package entered Debian, you get Ubuntu for free.  I don't know how to get a package to enter the official, non-universe, Ubuntu repository.

[takeshimiya]

Ok, lot's of struggle for making available in the debian repository.

So, there is any possibility to find an official debian developer willing to be the mantainer of the package?

I have the same question for other distros, as I think it would be more easy to find an official mantainer starts to deliver the package, rather than having an unofficial mantainer having approved the package.

[Neumann]

Ok, lot's of struggle for making available in the debian repository.

I might have made it sound worse than it is   It's not that bad for somebody who is motivated, but, like I said, I've got little time for that.

So, there is any possibility to find an official debian developer willing to be the mantainer of the package?

I think in most case, you'll get the same "no time" answer for most developers.  I think the best, most reliable way to proceed is to first get a sponsor to verify and upload the package, and only then post a Request for Adoption.  I think DDs are much more enclined to adopt a package that has already been checked a proven worthy of being uploaded.  Caring for the package still takes time, but I think a Code::Blocks package will be low-maintenance for a while, maybe until it gets more plugins and documentation and such...

[gariun]

Okay, so you can call me a newb here if youd like.  But i just got my linux box up and running, i really like codeblocks, and i would like to run it under FC4, but the rpm package at the top of this post's link is bad.  I was just wondering what you would suggest.  Thanks for humoring me.  I am somewhat new to linux and this is the first time ive used fedora.