MX Linux Forum

0 AD has been updated to alpha 26 this year; repo indicates alpha 23 as the version available.

New civilization, maps and music are in the update.

Did you take the time to check what in our test repo, perhaps using the test repo tab in MX Package Installer?

https://repology.org/project/0ad/versions

Stevo wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 6:04 pm Did you take the time to check what in our test repo, perhaps using the test repo tab in MX Package Installer?

https://repology.org/project/0ad/versions

My MXPI indicates that 0AD is installed already (greyed out)

I assumed that means the same version 23 as indicated in Synaptic program.

Okay I see test one tab over I keep forgetting the first tab is Popular not Stable
(both show 0AD greyed out so I assumed no higher version available).

I in general do not explore " test " repos, that is not the definition of stable or release.
I was recommending for release not testing.
I don't ask for test or back-ports of software; I'd rather request for proper Stable releases.

Mixing stable and test versions have given me problems in the past.
It is the same reason I do not package or install third party 'make install' scripts and instead run the binary directly after build.

I'll look into the test variant if it is stable enough.

Stevo wrote: Wed Dec 28, 2022 6:04 pm Did you take the time to check what in our test repo, perhaps using the test repo tab in MX Package Installer?

https://repology.org/project/0ad/versions

Okay I see where 0AD is mentioned in your " being worked on " thread.

But that is in another board, when I search the forums I search the request board before posting (for the current rev MX; MX-21).

Ugh, we have too many request boards.

Ugh, we have too many request boards.

Use Unread Posts to quickly find what you are looking for.

richb wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:28 pm

Ugh, we have too many request boards.

Use Unread Posts to quickly find what you are looking for.

I don't see how that helps ?

As I search for packages to determine existence before posting requests, there are multiple boards that may or may not have been read.

Having not read the post does not help in determining existence if I am searching the wrong board in the first place.

We have attempted to create sub-Forums that segregate help and information that are germane to that Forum heading, so that there is not a mixture of unrelated questions and information.
If you have any suggestions for a combination of sub-forums we would be happy to review them.
Please use Site Help for any suggestions.

richb wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 6:43 pm We have attempted to create sub-Forums that segregate help and information that are germane to that Forum heading, so that there is not a mixture of unrelated questions and information.
If you have any suggestions for a combination of sub-forums we would be happy to review them.
Please use Site Help for any suggestions.

We've gone down an unnecessary rabbit hole.

Before posting a request I searched the MX-21 request board.
Searching for 0AD brought up no results, so I made a request.

Steve posted that it is in the Test Repo; that is not quite the same thing as a release version but that means it is there somewhere.
(Though he was a bit snippy at it.)

I did not know this because the thread of steve's for listing what is being worked in Test is in the parent board and not the MX-21 request sub-board.

Solution for this is simple;
A reminder that it is in Test is fine when someone makes a request for a release package for the current distro.
But then don't badger that poster about web forum structures that you put in place.

Best efforts were made before posting request (checked repos then checked request board)
I keep forgetting about the Pop Apps tab and thinking t is the stable tab in the MXPI program. (So I miss the "MX Test" tab)
Now telling me that a test version exists does not address the release request but at least it tells me a new version is coming at some point.

I am not requesting a Test release; I am requesting a Stable release.
This is a Package Request Board; not a Test Request Board.

When a person posts a request in the sub-board (of the current distro release, MX-21 in this case) for a release package that is in test, just remind them it is being worked on.
There is no need for this rabbit hole.

In general, we like to have at least a few users test an update out before we move it from test into main. Otherwise, the new version may break something and we get a lot of complaints from those that didn't ask for the update.

That makes it difficult to move if no one wants to test it...

We make exceptions if the update fixes security holes or major bugs in the older release.

P.S. I find repology super useful for tracking package versions and what other distros have.

I have the newest version but I can't remember if I got it from the test repo or flathub. It works fine for me though. To be fair, most of the default games or games in the stable repos aren't the newest version. I usually check for new updates on the official websites of games. Then I try to find them in the stable, test repo or flathub. If it's not there, then I just get the package from the website myself. There's a lot of software that isn't regularly kept updated on mx so I just manually do it myself. It's not that big of a deal to me. The devs already have their plates full as it is I'm sure. You could make a snapshot of the current versions of software and/or games and upload it for others to use. Just an idea. I do get what you mean by wanting the newest version to be in the stable repos though. It's really not that hard to just upgrade to the newest version yourself. Only takes a few minutes. That's my opinion anyhow. Best of luck!

CyberGhost wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:01 pm I have the newest version but I can't remember if I got it from the test repo or flathub. It works fine for me though. To be fair, most of the default games or games in the stable repos aren't the newest version. I usually check for new updates on the official websites of games. Then I try to find them in the stable, test repo or flathub. If it's not there, then I just get the package from the website myself. There's a lot of software that isn't regularly kept updated on mx so I just manually do it myself. It's not that big of a deal to me. The devs already have their plates full as it is I'm sure. You could make a snapshot of the current versions of software and/or games and upload it for others to use. Just an idea. I do get what you mean by wanting the newest version to be in the stable repos though. It's really not that hard to just upgrade to the newest version yourself. Only takes a few minutes. That's my opinion anyhow. Best of luck!

Some of what you say is true.

But you are still putting something of an onious burden on the user to check at least four locations for some version of software and then use developer methods to install possibly unsupported packages.

Right now it is the sort of issue I have with Torque3D; there is no package in any of the five locations, I have to go to the official site (6th location), their package is broken, I have to get the source code, the code uses versions of compilers and libraries I don't have, get those downloaded and find they are the wrong version and nothing will compile right. Which means I would then have to recompile the libraries myself.

All of this for the STABLE release of a piece of software.
(sufficiently to say I gave up on Torque for now)

Look it is not the job of the 99.9% of users to do this.
It is not done this way on Windows, Macs or BSD.
Hell, even BSD gives build scripts so you just download and build source, easy-peasy.

Why is it only Linux does this ?
And then everyone acts like it is supposed to be this way ?

Stevo wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:33 pm P.S. I find repology super useful for tracking package versions and what other distros have.

Not sure what that final comment means.

I don't particularly see what that has to do with why I posted a package request.

However on that topic I don't think it is really all that useful, particularly some of their other features.

They mark so-called unsafe or vulnerable versions but don't really offer the criteria as to why.
With many packages unfixed for years and no explanation why they are unfixed.

Also it indicates a26 of 0AD in the MX-19 test repo which can't be possible because it didn't come out till September 2022.

A lot of the notations and footnotes on that site are not adequately explained.
(Like the different colored 4,6's at the end of urls)

TasogareNoOkami wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:50 pm

CyberGhost wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:01 pm I have the newest version but I can't remember if I got it from the test repo or flathub. It works fine for me though. To be fair, most of the default games or games in the stable repos aren't the newest version. I usually check for new updates on the official websites of games. Then I try to find them in the stable, test repo or flathub. If it's not there, then I just get the package from the website myself. There's a lot of software that isn't regularly kept updated on mx so I just manually do it myself. It's not that big of a deal to me. The devs already have their plates full as it is I'm sure. You could make a snapshot of the current versions of software and/or games and upload it for others to use. Just an idea. I do get what you mean by wanting the newest version to be in the stable repos though. It's really not that hard to just upgrade to the newest version yourself. Only takes a few minutes. That's my opinion anyhow. Best of luck!

Some of what you say is true.

But you are still putting something of an onious burden on the user to check at least four locations for some version of software and then use developer methods to install possibly unsupported packages.

Right now it is the sort of issue I have with Torque3D; there is no package in any of the five locations, I have to go to the official site (6th location), their package is broken, I have to get the source code, the code uses versions of compilers and libraries I don't have, get those downloaded and find they are the wrong version and nothing will compile right. Which means I would then have to recompile the libraries myself.

All of this for the STABLE release of a piece of software.
(sufficiently to say I gave up on Torque for now)

Look it is not the job of the 99.9% of users to do this.
It is not done this way on Windows, Macs or BSD.
Hell, even BSD gives build scripts so you just download and build source, easy-peasy.

Why is it only Linux does this ?
And then everyone acts like it is supposed to be this way ?

You do have a good point. I tend to forget that a lot of, if not most end users lack any or very little technical knowledge. So I do understand your position on this. I hope your request is approved and implemented. I haven't played Torq in years! I think I played a really old version I found in synaptic package manager. It was fun but I always wondered what it would be like with further development. It definitely had potential. I didn't even know it still existed. I forgot all about it to be honest. Sounds like too much of a headache to fool with now!