Re: Build a portable linux binary?

[Tatsuro MATSUOKA]

>On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 14:56 Mike Miller <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 09:06:06 +0000, CROZIER Richard wrote:
>>> As someone else has pointed out though, actually for me the problem is
>>> that even the latest OS, e.g. Ubuntu 18.04 has an out of date Octave
>>> package in the repositories. For me, I routinely build Octave from
>>> source,
>>
>>Is there anything we here can do as a community to help counter this
>>belief that Octave from Ubuntu LTS is "out of date"? It's a relative
>>term. Compared to Octave 3.2, Octave 4.2 is an amazing improvement.
>>
>
>
>This whole conversation is, perhaps for the first time in this community, 
>giving me the feeling that I have an advantage by being a windows user. The 
>standard windows model is ‘go get that thing and install it. With few 
>exceptions, everything the program needs to run is self contained.’  Yes, i 
>recognize that that puts more burden on you developers.  But installing an 
>updated binary (think Firefox, libreoffice, etc) is just a necessary process 
>and  sometimes automated. 
>
On linux, each distribution has own applications and libraries etcs. 
They are updated from mainly security point of view.
Firefox is frequently updated because it is we browser so that security issue 
is important.
The library update is delicate. If some libraries are updated and sometimes 
break the link.
And thus version of software by distro is rarely update.


Although, on Ubuntu, there is the PPA system sometimes updates software but it 
is not always.    



>>If I have a system with Ubuntu 16.04, which is old but still supported,
>>I will get Octave 4.0. If I just want Octave, I probably don't care that
>>it's 4.0, so it's not "out of date" to me, it works perfectly fine. 
>
>
>Yet when users on help list ask anything, a frequent response is ‘you’re using 
>an out of date version can you try a more recent one, that was fixed in 4.x’  
>With windows I can just tell them to go download the more recent binary.  On 
>Linux does that mean ‘go build from source’? How easy is it for someone to use 
>a different package repo to get a newer version? 


>  On Linux does that mean ‘go build from source’?
Yes it was.
For gnuplot, the latest version is delivered on source except for windows.
On linux each distros. prepare each gnuplot.  
But it becomes soon out of date.

So that users should build from source.||

However, build from source on linux is far easy that on windows.

For example gnuplot on ubuntu.

$ sudo apt build-dep gnuplot

This install build tools and libraries that are required to build.

And then source is extracted and execute
$ ./configure
$ make
$ make check
$ sudo make install

It is not so difficult if you do not meet troubles.
(If you met trouble. It is very difficult to get rid of them for ordinary 
users.) 

>>will also get GNOME 3.18 and LibreOffice 5, which also work perfectly
>>fine even though they are not the bleeding edge latest release.
>
>
>But we’re a comparison/replacement product. Libreoffice 5 stands alone as a 
>stable basic product. For some people ‘basic’ usage of octave requires some 
>2010 matlab compatibility that just isn’t implemented yet. So ‘out of date’ 
>means very different things to different users. A lot was implemented between 
>octave 4 and 5 that could render the product useless for some users. 
>
>
>I had mentioned a while back that it might be worth generating a comparison 
>function list with past matlab versions and encouraging old missing function 
>implementation so we could verify ‘99% function compatible with matlab 2006’, 
>or similar. We just got a host of newbie users posting homework style 
>questions in help, and at least one ranted about ‘omg this sux none of the 
>functions I want are implemented’.  If it’s  not obvious how a user can 
>check/expect some level of compatibility, and it’s not trivial to upgrade to 
>the newest version to get a recently implemented function, and the only other 
>way is to compile from source, new user retention will be the worse for it. 
>
>>
>>> but if I want people to use stuff which uses the latest(ish)
>>> features, they have to build Octave too. Remember this is *hard* for
>>> ordinary users who don't even know about make for example.
>>
>>I agree, ordinary users should absolutely not be building Octave from
>>source, unless they want to.
>
>
>In windows, I can at least always be sure I’m getting the latest release, 
>since binary release is the only distro model. If I really really needed some 
>dev function, I’d have to manually implement or crosscompile. But that delta 
>(in time) is typically small. Thanks to you fine folks I never have “we’re up 
>to 5.1 but we haven’t built a win binary since 4.0” problems. When 5.1 comes 
>out, 5.1 is quickly there to download.
>
>
>
>>Users should absolutely not be downloading some binary tarball from a
>>web site to install Octave (or any other application).
>>
>
>
>Again, that’s the lovely (virus ridden) windows model, and lots of people are 
>familiar with that model even if they usually work on linux. I don’t think 
>people would object that heavily even if maybe they “shouldn’t” do it that way.
>
>
>I’m still thinking the OS agnostic virtual appliance model could be worthwhile.



Recently, snap and/or flatpak appear and situations are now changing.

Tatsuro