I now understand the major differences between source release and binary release of a software. A good question here.
I needed to install Node.js on a Linux machine, and chose binary release because it requires no compilation/installation. I downloaded the tar, unzipped the file, and it's ready-to-go.
My question is, when both choices are available, for what reasons would a person choose source over binary?
The only thing I can think of is that the person wishes to read/study the source code.
You need a source release when:
There are no pre-compiled binaries for your platform. You have to build them yourself.
You want to compile it into your project.
You want to make changes (although you'd better be using git for that).
You want to comply to the open source license when using it in your product.
Eg: with gpl you must provide the source when someone asks.
Related
I am looking for an executable (or a library that I might embed in C# or via Managed C++ into the C# project) to create binary diff files for two folders and their contents and a patch tool to apply those patch files as well targeting Windows.
This SO post refers to various tools such as bsdiff/bspatch which is highly dated. The 3rd party executable that is available here does not work when trying it out though. Another variant that is not compatible with the original is the following. Unfortunately it relies on bzlib and certain Linux headers and I wasn't really able to set it up accordingly under Visual Studio.
Anyways, all tools and posts are about 8-10 years old and I'd like to know which tools and libraries are currently maintained that I might take a look at.
I have been experimenting with Octodiff and I am impressed and will most likely be using it in production.
I'd like to use open source library on Windows. (ex:Aquila, following http://aquila-dsp.org/articles/iteration-over-wave-file-data-revisited/) But I can't understand anything about "Build System"... Everyone just say like, "Unzip the tar, do configure, make, make file" at Linux, but I want to use them for Windows. There are some several questions.
i) Why do I have to "Install" for just source code? Why can't I use these header files by copying them to the working directory and throw #include ".\aquila\global.h" ??
ii) What are Configuration and Make/Make Install? I can't understand them. I just know that configuration open source with Windows need "CMake", and it is configuration tool... But what it actually does??
iii) Though I've done : cmake, mingw32-make, mingw32-make install... My compiler said "undefined references to ...". What this means and what should I do with them?
You don't need to install for sources. You do need to install for the libraries that get built from that source code and that your code is going to use.
configure is the standard name for the script that does build configuration for the software about to be built. The usual way it is run (and how you will see it mentioned) is ./configure.
make is a build management tool (as the tag here on SO will tell you). One of the most common mechanisms for building code on linux (etc.) is to use the autotools suite which uses the aforementioned configure script to generate build configuration information for use by generated makefiles which make then uses to build the software. make is also the way to run the default build target defined in a makefile (which is often the all target and which usually builds the appropriate library/binary/etc.).
make install is a specific, secondary, invocation of the make tool on the install target which (generally) installs the (in this case previously) built code into an appropriate location (in the autotools/configure universe the default location is generally under /usr/local).
cmake is, again as the SO tag says, a build system that generates configuration files for other build tools (make, VS, etc.). This allows the developers to create the build configuration once and build on multiple platforms/etc. (at least in theory).
If running cmake worked correctly then it should have generated the correct information for whatever target system you told it to use (make or VS or whatever). Assuming that was make that should have allowed mingw32-make to build the software correctly (assuming additionally that mingw32-make is not a distinct cmake target than make). If that is not working correctly then something is still missing from your system (and cmake probably should have caught that).
But to give any more detail you will need to give more detail about what errors you are actually getting and from what command.
(Oh, and on Windows, and especially if you plan on building your software with VS (or some other non-mingw32-make tool) the chances of you needing to run mingw32-make install are incredibly small).
For Windows use cmake or latest ninja.
The process is not simple or straight, but achievable. You need to write CMake configuration.
Building process is not simple and straight, that's why there exists language like Java(that's another thing though)
Rely on CMake build the library, and you will get the Open-Source library for Windows.
You can distribute this as library for Windows systems, distribute and integrate with your own software, include the Open Source library, in either cases, you would have to build it for Windows.
Writing CMake helps, it would be helpful to build for other platforms as well.
Now Question comes: Is there any other way except CMake for Windows Build
Would you love the flavor of writing directly Assembly?
If obviously answer is no, you would have to write CMake and generate sln for MSVC and other compilers.
Just fix some of the errors comes, read the FAQ, Documentation before building an Open Source library. And fix the errors as they lurk through.
It is like handling burning iron, but it pays if you're working on something meaningful. Most of the server libraries are Open Source(e.g. age old Apache httpd). So, think before what you're doing.
There are also not many useful Open Source libraries which you could use in your project, but it's the way to Use the Open Source libraries.
I can't stand XCode, but really love OpenFrameworks, and I know it works on Linux+Win32 so I don't see why it should be XCode dependent. If I need to have XCode installed that's fine, I just don't want to use it at all.
Xcode internally uses gcc/llvm. in fact from the command line you can cd into a directory that contains an openFrameworks project and just type xcodebuild. but this won't allow you to edit the project file and add new source code, etc.
the Linux makefiles could be adapted to work on OSX as well. they already contain a lot of the information necessary about finding the correct source files, library paths etc. however Linux allows us to install many more components as shared system libraries, while on OSX we link most of the libs statically, so a number of extra library paths would need to be added. probably the biggest gotcha is that everything has to be compiled 32 bit, which means passing -arch i386 everywhere, so you can't just install dependant libs using Homebrew or MacPorts. we are in the process of transitioning to 64 bit but there are still some QuickTime calls that require us to stick with 32 bit, mainly around accessing legacy video capture devices that a lot of us still use for computer vision.
like #cdelacroix points out, we only maintain Xcode project files on OSX. this is mainly due to the lack of a decent alternative. there is a version of Code::Blocks for OSX but it is not very well supported, has some issues with native gui rendering and tends to lag behind the other platforms. Xcode is also the easiest way to install a toolchain on OSX so for most users installing Xcode is necessary.
if you do get a makefile based build system working, and would be interested in maintaining it medium to long term, please consider contributing it to the GitHub repository, it would be gladly accepted.
As of March 2013, openFrameworks has official makefile support for compiling the library itself. However, at the time of this writing, the changes haven't yet been merged into the stable release. You'll need to clone the Git repository and switch to the development branch.
git clone https://github.com/openframeworks/openFrameworks
cd openFrameworks && git checkout develop
cd libs/openFrameworksCompiled/project
make
As far as I can tell, we still need to use the unofficial solutions for compiling apps against the library.
You need Xcode, or at least a set of compilers (more information is available here), but otherwise, no, you can edit/work with the code in whatever editor or environment you want.
Here's a link to a makefile which will compile an OpenFrameworks application on OsX:
https://gist.github.com/labe-me/1190981
Place the makefile in the apps' directory and run make. Tested on OsX 10.6, but haven't tried with addons yet.
As #mipadi said, there is no requirement to actually use Xcode, you can do pretty much everything you do in Xcode with make or cake or any of your build system of choice. All you have to do is find the right set of command line options to pass to the usual tools (compiler, linker, strip, etc.), and sometimes the easier way is to... look in the Xcode build window how it is doing stuff (expand the lines with the small button on the right of each line).
For example you can link with your framework of choice with ld -framework Framework -FPathToFramework foo.o or your dynamic library with ld -lLib -LPathToDylib foo.o. You might have to learn about #rpath, #loader_path and install_name_tool to ship a self-contained packaged application.
As for OpenFrameworks, the "requirement" for Xcode is that the authors decided to maintain only Xcode project files. I just looked at how they do it, they ship source code and Xcode project files that build static libraries, so it will be even more simple for you (although you will need to link the library dependencies by hand). You will have to choose between compiling everything from source in your build system (if you want more customization power without touching Xcode), or just produce the 2 static libraries (openFrameworks.a and openFrameworksDebug.a) with Xcode once, then use them in your build system (recommended until you really need continuous customization).
I'm using Xcode 3.2.1 on OSX 10.6.8, and I want to study how Avogadro works by debugging its source code. There is a CMake guide here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160816105549/http://avogadro.cc/wiki/Compiling_on_Linux_and_Mac_OS_X
that explains how to do it (and the sources are provided), but I am not very familiar with debugging. How do I organize the source files into a new Xcode project and step through a compiled version?
Here is the git clone command:
git clone --recursive git://github.com/cryos/avogadro-squared.git
I spot a folder called /Users/Eric/Desktop/avogadro-squared/avogadro/avogadro/src but I'm unsure as to how to proceed with setting flags etc., since the project is originally compiled in Cmake.
I'm not familiar with Avogadro but I just downloaded the source. There are not any xcode projects that I could find. So if you want to use Xcode to debug it you will need to create the necessary projects. How do you do that? Well, Avogadro seems to be built up with several other sub modules, openqube, openbabel, and eigen in particular. So you will need to create xcode projects for them also (if they don't have them already.)
This is not a small job, you'll need to read the makefiles and see what libraries they need etc...
But, and this is the good news, once it is done you will have learn a lot about how Avogadro is built which will help you learn how Avogadro works, which was your goal.
And when you are done, you can then offer up your changes to the community, after all, that is what open source is all about, right?
Avogadro uses CMake, and CMake is a build system generator (part of the reason we chose it). So you can use its generator mechanism to request an Xcode build system. There is a general answer on StackOverflow to generate an Xcode project using CMake. You are looking at the superbuild which gathers/builds all dependencies - you really want to go into the avogadro subfolder and open that in Xcode.
I am building a win32 executable. The compiler is the latest version of MinGW. The library dependencies are GLUT and libpng.
I first tested on a windows 7 machine, and had to obtain libpng3.dll and freeglut32.dll. However, on XP, I had to (in addition) acquire zlib1.dll.
The XP machine was a VM with a fresh install, so I suspect a fresh win7 machine may also be lacking zlib1.
My question is how do I go about finding out which dll's I need to distribute? How do I know, a priori, which dynamic libraries are needed for my program to run on a particular system? I suppose this is what installer programs are for... I'm guessing that what the installer does is look through the system to find out which dependencies are unsatisfied, and then provides them. So this way if I were to distribute my program I could check if the user's machine already has zlib1.dll, and I won't install zlib1.dll if it's already found in the system directory. However I never found a document that said to me specifically, "libpng requires zlib", and so, until such point as I tested the executable on a machine lacking zlib, I was unaware of this dependency. How can I create my dependency list without having a fresh install of each version of every operating system to test on?
One idea I have is to decompile the executable, or through some method examine the linking process, to find all the libraries that are being linked at runtime. The problem now becomes figuring out which of these are supposed to already be there, and which of them I could be expected to provide in the distribution.
edit: Okay, I looked, and the installation of libpng I downloaded did provide zlib1.dll inside its bin directory. So not including it is pretty much my fault. In any case, Daniel's answer is definitive.
Dependendy Walker shows all deps of your program.
The correct answer to this question, in my view, is to start at the source rather than to reverse engineer the solution with Dependency Walker, awesome and useful tool though it undoubtedly is.
The problem with Dependency Walker is that it only tells you what one particular run of the program requires on the OS on which you run it. If you have any dynamic loading dependencies in your app then you would only pick those up if you made sure you profiled the app with Dep. Walker and forced it through those dynamic loads.
My preferred approach to this problem is to start with your own source code and analyse and understand what it depends upon. It's often easy enough to do so because you know it well.
You need to understand what are the deployment requirements for your compiler. You usually have options of linking statically and dynamically to the C++ runtime. Obviously a dynamic link results in a deployment requirement.
You will also likely link to 3rd party code. One example would be Windows components. These typically don't need deployment, you can take them as already being in place. Sometimes that's not true, e.g. GDI+ on Windows 2000.
Sometimes you will link statically to 3rd party code (again easy), but if you link dynamically then that implies a deployment requirement.