Ugh. (the ut2004 linux procedure)

DeathAndTaxes · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 27 Mar 2003 Posts: 124

Here's what's asked of the linux user when all they want to do is patch their ut2004 install from version 3236-r1 (probably a gentoo-specific level) to 3323:

ScArE2100 · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:49 am Post subject:

Yeah I think its dumb too.

DeathAndTaxes · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 27 Mar 2003 Posts: 124

Ok, I need to back off a bit from my rant...BTW, I got the CDs, not the DVD.

I guess it's actually the ebuild's maintainer's fault. I usually really appreciate maintainers, but I can unpack this tarball manually and apply the patch without even thinking about the CDs.

Shouldn't the ebuild detect that the game is already installed and if so, just unpack the tarball to the appropriate directory? I mean, if I didn't have ut2004 already installed, it'd be neat to actually have this little message telling you how to install ut2004, etc...But if it's already installed, it's completely unnecessary to do anything but unpack the files where they go. Ok, so now you can vote again!

DeathAndTaxes · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 27 Mar 2003 Posts: 124

I think

grenouille · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 12 Jun 2004 Posts: 97

The problem isn't the ebuild or the maintainer or the game itself...

The problem is the way portage works. It doesn't update things, it installs the new version and removes the former one. So I dunno if for now it's possible to have a game like ut2004 upgraded with portage without reinstalling the whole thing

Naib · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:44 am Post subject:

Yes
It is how Portage Work - doing what is needed for UT patch would go against the philosopy of the Portage.

It is annoying but still. I use Portage with UT2004 to tell me when a new patch is out (if I havn't spotted it before).

I use my install script to install it and test the game.

I then just

#emerge inject games-fps/ut2004-3323

To let portage "think" I emerged it

Has worked allways

tactless · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:47 am Post subject:

Well, as people have mentioned, portage simply doesn't DO patching.

But...

If I am not mistaken, the UT2004 patches are not cumulative: to get version X, you do not need versions B through W, just "version A" - i.e, the base install.
Actually, this is true for most commercial games. So I have a bit of a radical suggestion, but hey - it might work. If you like this, say so. Who knows, I might get highlighted in the next GWN

Let's say you've installed a commercial game on your system, using the CD-included installer. You put it in /usr/local/games/doom3/.
Now, you want to patch doom3 to the latest version in portage. The ebuild will be called doom3-patches.

GrayFox · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:40 pm Post subject:

There are two ways I can think of that could make you life easier. First one would be to write your own ut2004-patch ebuild that is just copying the patch files to the ut dir. Should be very easy to maintain. Second you could patch you ut manually and then inject the new ut version.
EDIT: oops I should have read tactless' post more carefully :roll:

_________________
Random Stuff

BlackEdder · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:46 pm Post subject:

I always start emerge, then stop it after the license agreement, it will have downloaded the patch by then to /usr/portage/distfiles. Install thi manually and inject the new ut version:) it's not pretty, but it works

GrayFox · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 6:01 pm Post subject:

Ok I tried to make an ebuild that checks /etc/portage/package.games and looks for a line like:

deathdruid · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:24 pm Post subject:

What we need is two ebuilds, one called ut2004-data and the other ut2004-bin. Only the ut2004-bin ebuild should be run for patches that do not affect data files.

Naib · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:27 pm Post subject:

again I stress:

How would you un-emerge a patch if you had to (like if a patch turned out to be dodgy)

The portage system does not cater for what would be needed - ie

When a patch is emerged a list of all files being replaced is taken and these files put into a bachup.tar.gz within the ut2004 install directory.

If for some reason you have to un-emerge the patch, portage deletes the files the ebuild merged in BUT it would then have to unzip the archive and install those files

GrayFox · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:33 pm Post subject:

Well can you do this when you manually patch UT? Can you actually tell me a program which you can "un-patch" like that? I don't think so. Besides copying the old patch over the new one(or doing a emerge =ut2004-patch-{older-version}) does downgrade ut.
_________________
Random Stuff

deathdruid · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:41 pm Post subject:

I realize that it would have to redo all the files apart from the data files even if they were not part of the patch, but for me the biggest anoyance is the time it takes to copy the large data files. So the ut2004-bin/ut2004-data idea works fine for me.

As for uninstalling, you would unmerge the latest patch and re-emerge the previous version.

GrayFox · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:49 pm Post subject:

Maybe I'm just too stupid but...
Isn't that exactly what I meant? You have the normal ut2004 ebuild. For a first installation or if it's broken etc. Then when you want to patch it you use ut2004-patch. Then if that patch breaks anything you can just emerge an earlier patch with that ebuild...
I still don't get your point sorry.
_________________
Random Stuff

deathdruid · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:00 pm Post subject:

Here's the thing. I want ut2004 to be my application. Not ut2004 + ut2004-patch. I don't want to do "emerge ut2004; emerge ut-2004-patch", just "emerge ut2004".

Your version:

ut2004 --> original ut2004 off cd + data files
ut2004-patch --> new files in patch

My version:

ut2004 --> application binaries and other files, but no data files
(depends on)
ut2004-data --> data files

This is not saying that your ebuild idea does not work, I just like mine better.

Naib · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:34 pm Post subject:

GrayFox · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:12 pm Post subject:

Ah now I get it. The only problem then is what if not all files are included in the next patch? For example in 3270 There is no Animations folder(correct me if I'm wrong) but in 3323 there is one. Of course the idea is really good but hard to realize.
_________________
Random Stuff

UncleOwen · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:48 pm Post subject:

@Grayfox: They will be.

tactless · Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:16 am Post subject:

Okay, since you seem to like my idea, I'll address some of the issues that have been raised.

deathdruid: There is no need to make a distinction between data and binary files (both of which, actually, are binary data

). Patches update both. Even what you call plain 'data' has scripting information that changes with the patches. It makes no sense to keep separate ebuilds. Rather, an ebuild for the commercially distributed (CD, DVD) version, and an ebuild for patches.
Your thinking works well for many other projects, which do have a nice split between binary versions and data versions. UT2004, however, updates all in one fell swoop, so this split cannot be reliably done.
Naib: As for patch backrolling, this would be complicated under any system - not just portage. Basically, the easiest way to unroll would be to reinstall the CD version and possible install a previous patch version (usually the patch alone will suffice). For better speed, you might want to check the creation timestamps on all files. Anything newer than the CD/DVD version gets replaced by the original version. Then you can apply a patch.

Overall, it would be nice to get all this in one ebuild - have portage realize when the game is already installed and all, but I'm pretty sure that this would require a package to depend on a previous version of itself, which portage wouldn't like.
_________________
Tactless

"If it wasn't for fog, the world would run at a really crappy framerate."

Jabber: tactless@amessage.info