I think the subject says it all...
Created attachment 35599 [details] Ebuild for CBP2 1 & 2 Ebuild for CBP2 both releases
Created attachment 35601 [details] Files needed for CBP2 ebuild This file should be on the mirrors. It contains some files wich ut2004 normally would make them. But they are then located in the user's homedir wich creates some problems on removing the CBP.
i favor using the loki installer for linux games versions, mostly due to the fact that they are mirrored on sourceforge. http://liflg.sourceforge.net/?page=art&artid=60
There is no way we will use the Loki installer. Why would we need *another* installer when we have portage?
just a suggestion. i'm under the impression that the sourceforge mirrors are much more constant, stable, and faster than the ones listed in the current ebuild. i could care less as long as i can install them with portage. :) one advantage i could see of using the loki installer is that it would make writing some of the other mod ebuilds as easy as changing a few words.
Installing packages via the Loki installer makes it impossible for portage to track. If you mean using our unpack_makeself function, then that would be possible. However, there are no Loki installer packages for CBP1 or CBP2.
well i was just thinking if we wrapped the loki installer in an ebuild, portage would still be in control of the files. in the same way that wrapping an rpm in an ebuild gives portage control. i don't know what unpack_makeself does, any insight? about the existence of the installers, i had been browsing the SF listing and not the liflg page. apparently they don't list them on their page, but they can be found here: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=99009&package_id=119539
All Loki installer packages are MakeSelf archives, when uncompress, then execute the Loki Installer. We do not do this, as it will place files outside the control of portage. For portage to track files, it must place them itself. Now, what we do instead, is extract the data portion of the MakeSelf archive ourselves and manually shift files around to where they go. In the case of a ut mod, it usually is easier for us to use the ut2mod version than to use anything else, simply because there is already a mechanism to work with them built into ucc. Otherwise, we have to duplicate a lot of work, which makes the ebuild unecessarily complex. I'm all for simplicity, which is why I avoid using any Loki installer package when another method is available.
now i understand. :) i agree that using a ut2mod would be much easier. how can we go about setting up a system so that ut mods can be easily added to portage? maybe a utmod class? i consider ut mods to be a great value added to the price of the game, and it would be great if portage could handle these mods for us easily. i dont know if cbp2 is available in ut2mod, but i think this current version is using the zip. i dont see that being a problem either in the case of mods that have zip archives.
Created attachment 43220 [details] reviewed ebuild Fixed some sloppyness in the obsoleted ebuild, like wrong homepage and desrciption.
Created attachment 44792 [details] Ebuild for CBP1 converted to UT2004 This is a ebuild for the first CBP, wich is converted to UT2004
Created attachment 44793 [details] Files needed fot ut2004-cbp1 ebuild same like the other archive, should be on the mirrors
I've added my own versions to CVS
