Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
On 2021-03-24 2:43 p.m., Mathias Homann via groups.io wrote:
Windows is now supposed to have some kind of nested linux, so a linux
solution should work there.
You mean like this?
That's pretty cool.
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
XEphem should work everywhere - so whatever is needed for that, I'd say.
I'm just a consumer/observer, happy that people are working on this!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2021-03-24 2:50 p.m., Gilbert Gnarley via groups.io wrote: Apple moving to the new chip may break the executable but not the
package manager. Those two things are not related.
So your proposing not including any updates to Xephem for OSX?
On 3/24/21 3:57 PM, Sarty, Gordon wrote:
Mac OSX already has a (nice) .dmg for XEphem, but it will likely be
broken when tried with the new chip. (I have abandoned mac for this
and other reasons.)
I'm on ubuntu which has snap and apt installed literally out of the
factory (a Dell). I'd have to install flatpac to use it. Somehow.
(i.e. yet another step to get XEphem installed)
Windows is now supposed to have some kind of nested linux, so a linux
solution should work there.
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Apple moving to the new chip may break the executable but not the
package manager. Those two things are not related.
So your proposing not including any updates to Xephem for OSX?
On 3/24/21 3:57 PM, Sarty, Gordon
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Mac OSX already has a (nice) .dmg for XEphem, but it will
likely be broken when tried with the new chip. (I have abandoned
mac for this and other reasons.)
I'm on ubuntu which has snap and apt installed literally out of
the factory (a Dell). I'd have to install flatpac to use it.
Somehow. (i.e. yet another step to get XEphem installed)
Windows is now supposed to have some kind of nested linux, so a
linux solution should work there.
On 2021-03-24 1:11 p.m., Gilbert
Gnarley via groups.io wrote:
CAUTION:
External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links
and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to
phishing@...
Why do you want to limit it to Linux platforms?
What about Unix platforms like Mac OSX.
I have it installed Fedora and OSX 10.14.
... and forgive me for saying this Windows.
On 3/24/21 2:55 PM, georg180662
wrote:
Hi all,
Appimage, Snap and Flatpak are 3 different concepts with
the same goal: to pack a complete application with all
dependencies in one package and make it executable on a
variety of platforms independent of the distribution.
?
Each has advantages and disadvantages - that's why
there are three...
?
The goal is what we all want for XEphem. The "winning"
format will be the one, that someone can implement first
for XEphem.
Compared to appimage, snap and flatpak are the more
modern formats. I would prefer them.
?
Good comparison of the 3 formats:
?
In sum, I think flatpak is best for xephen. (this is my
personal opinion)
But I would be excited about any format that someone
provides!
?
?
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Am 24.03.2021 um 20:57 schrieb Sarty, Gordon:
Mac OSX already has a (nice) .dmg for XEphem, but it will likely be broken when tried with the new chip. (I have abandoned mac for this and other reasons.)
I'm on ubuntu which has snap and apt installed literally out of the factory (a Dell). I'd have to install flatpac to use it. Somehow. (i.e. yet another step to get XEphem installed)
Windows is now supposed to have some kind of nested linux, so a linux solution should work there.
You mean like this? That's the openSUSE rpm version of XEphem running inside a WSL session on Windows 10, X11 forwarding provided by MobaXTerm. That being said, i'm investigating flatpaks right now - snapcraft is teh suckage extraordinaire. Cheers MH -- Mathias Homann Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant, IT Trainer Mathias.Homann@... (email,XMPP) LinkedIn: telegram: keybase: gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Mac OSX already has a (nice) .dmg for XEphem, but it will likely be broken when tried with the new chip. (I have abandoned mac for this and other reasons.)
I'm on ubuntu which has snap and apt installed literally out of the factory (a Dell). I'd have to install flatpac to use it. Somehow. (i.e. yet another step to get XEphem installed)
Windows is now supposed to have some kind of nested linux, so a linux solution should work there.
On 2021-03-24 1:11 p.m., Gilbert Gnarley via groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to
phishing@...
Why do you want to limit it to Linux platforms?
What about Unix platforms like Mac OSX.
I have it installed Fedora and OSX 10.14.
... and forgive me for saying this Windows.
On 3/24/21 2:55 PM, georg180662 wrote:
Hi all,
Appimage, Snap and Flatpak are 3 different concepts with the same goal: to pack a complete application with all dependencies in one package and make it executable on a variety of platforms independent of the distribution.
?
Each has advantages and disadvantages - that's why there are three...
?
The goal is what we all want for XEphem. The "winning" format will be the one, that someone can implement first for XEphem.
Compared to appimage, snap and flatpak are the more modern formats. I would prefer them.
?
Good comparison of the 3 formats:
?
In sum, I think flatpak is best for xephen. (this is my personal opinion)
But I would be excited about any format that someone provides!
?
?
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Why do you want to limit it to Linux platforms?
What about Unix platforms like Mac OSX.
I have it installed Fedora and OSX 10.14.
... and forgive me for saying this Windows.
On 3/24/21 2:55 PM, georg180662 wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi all,
Appimage, Snap and Flatpak are 3 different concepts with the
same goal: to pack a complete application with all dependencies
in one package and make it executable on a variety of platforms
independent of the distribution.
?
Each has advantages and disadvantages - that's why there are
three...
?
The goal is what we all want for XEphem. The "winning" format
will be the one, that someone can implement first for XEphem.
Compared to appimage, snap and flatpak are the more modern
formats. I would prefer them.
?
Good comparison of the 3 formats:
?
In sum, I think flatpak is best for xephen. (this is my
personal opinion)
But I would be excited about any format that someone
provides!
?
?
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Hi all,
Appimage, Snap and Flatpak are 3 different concepts with the same goal: to pack a complete application with all dependencies in one package and make it executable on a variety of platforms independent of the distribution.
?
Each has advantages and disadvantages - that's why there are three...
?
The goal is what we all want for XEphem. The "winning" format will be the one, that someone can implement first for XEphem.
Compared to appimage, snap and flatpak are the more modern formats. I would prefer them.
?
Good comparison of the 3 formats:
https://ostechnix.com/linux-package-managers-compared-appimage-vs-snap-vs-flatpak/
?
In sum, I think flatpak is best for xephen. (this is my personal opinion)
But I would be excited about any format that someone provides!
?
?
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Hi,
I am not sure what flatpak is and how it works.
Will there be any chance of having it in "Appimage"?
An "Appimage" is a single file with all libraries and program compress together. just download the file change the access rights (with chmod 755) and execute it. It appears to uncompress itself and run from RAM.
woeimun
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 20/3/21 7:32 am, Gilbert Gnarley wrote: I would encourage us to keep a tar.gz of it also.
Is anyone in charge of doing this or are random people pitching in when they can?
On 3/19/21 7:29 PM, Sarty, Gordon wrote:
I like debs. apt install handles debs ok.
The limits of snap are silly but I've worked around them.
I don't know what a flatpak is.
Gordon
On 2021-03-19 4:37 p.m., Mathias Homann via groups.io wrote:
CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to phishing@...
Am Samstag, 6. Februar 2021, 19:11:47 CET schrieb georg180662:
it *should* be a *snap or flatpak* , *not* a deb After some experiments I'm strongly opposing snap - for ANYTHING, not just
xephem: snap can't be used if your home directory is not under /home.
That is just stupid.
that needs to be fixed in snapd or snap needs to die.
Cheers
MH
--
Mathias Homann
Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant. IT Trainer
Mathias.Homann@... (email / XMPP)
LinkedIn:
telegram:
keybase:
gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
I still does run on Mac OSX 10.14. I have it on my iMac now.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/20/21 5:57 PM, ab1jx wrote: Yes, please, a tar.gz. On a quick look flatpak is only for linux.
Xephem at least used to run and Apples and the BSDs.
"The future of ap[s on Linux"
On 3/19/21, Gilbert Gnarley <gnzxzx@...> wrote:
I would encourage us to keep a tar.gz of it also.
Is anyone in charge of doing this or are random people pitching in when
they can?
On 3/19/21 7:29 PM, Sarty, Gordon wrote:
I like debs. apt install handles debs ok.
The limits of snap are silly but I've worked around them.
I don't know what a flatpak is.
Gordon
On 2021-03-19 4:37 p.m., Mathias Homann via groups.io wrote:
CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and
attachments. Forward suspicious emails to phishing@...
Am Samstag, 6. Februar 2021, 19:11:47 CET schrieb georg180662:
it *should* be a *snap or flatpak* , *not* a deb After some experiments I'm strongly opposing snap - for ANYTHING, not
just
xephem: snap can't be used if your home directory is not under /home.
That is just stupid.
that needs to be fixed in snapd or snap needs to die.
Cheers
MH
--
Mathias Homann
Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant. IT Trainer
Mathias.Homann@... (email / XMPP)
LinkedIn:
telegram:
keybase:
gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Ok, just to throw in my two cents...
I managed to get xephem to build an run on my Ubuntu Linux box with no problems at all. After a quick re-try, back when this thread started, I failed. Since atm. I have no enough time to dig in deeper, I haven't figured out why.
Anyway I would like to see someone offering a flatpak, too. That would be a really handy feature.
Since I dislike Snappy, for the reasons already mentioned, let me point out two further alternatives, there's also AppImage and Zero Install, which try to resolve the same issue:
-Harri
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Gesendet: Samstag, 20. M?rz 2021 um 22:57 Uhr
Von: "ab1jx" <alan01346@...>
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [xephem] it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Yes, please, a tar.gz. On a quick look flatpak is only for linux.
Xephem at least used to run and Apples and the BSDs.
"The future of ap[s on Linux"
On 3/19/21, Gilbert Gnarley <gnzxzx@...> wrote:
I would encourage us to keep a tar.gz of it also.
Is anyone in charge of doing this or are random people pitching in when
they can?
On 3/19/21 7:29 PM, Sarty, Gordon wrote:
I like debs. apt install handles debs ok.
The limits of snap are silly but I've worked around them.
I don't know what a flatpak is.
Gordon
On 2021-03-19 4:37 p.m., Mathias Homann via groups.io wrote:
CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and
attachments. Forward suspicious emails to phishing@...
Am Samstag, 6. Februar 2021, 19:11:47 CET schrieb georg180662:
it *should* be a *snap or flatpak* , *not* a deb After some experiments I'm strongly opposing snap - for ANYTHING, not
just
xephem: snap can't be used if your home directory is not under /home.
That is just stupid.
that needs to be fixed in snapd or snap needs to die.
Cheers
MH
--
Mathias Homann
Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant. IT Trainer
Mathias.Homann@... (email / XMPP)
LinkedIn:
telegram:
keybase:
gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
--
-------------
Education is contagious.
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Right, I think it's in ports/packages in OpenBSD too.? But did it come out of a flatpak?
Apparently from looking at https:// it could be used by other operating systems, they're only binaries, they cover most major architectures.? Does it bundle all the dependencies together or what?? sounds like it was written by salesmen or politicians.
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 6:37 PM Eric De La Cruz Lugo via <eric_delacruz= [email protected]> wrote:
Here in FreeBSD 12.2 amd64 working just great! from ports! on plasma.
Eric De La Cruz Lugo Merida Yucatan
Mexico
On Saturday, March 20, 2021, 3:57:34 PM CST, ab1jx < alan01346@...> wrote:
Yes, please, a tar.gz.? On a quick look flatpak is only for linux. Xephem at least used to run and Apples and the BSDs. "The future of ap[s on Linux" On 3/19/21, Gilbert Gnarley < gnzxzx@...> wrote: > I would encourage us to keep a tar.gz of it also. > Is anyone in charge of doing this or are random people pitching in when > they can? > > On 3/19/21 7:29 PM, Sarty, Gordon wrote: >> I like debs. apt install handles debs ok. >> >> The limits of snap are silly but I've worked around them. >> >> I don't know what a flatpak is. >> >> Gordon >> >> On 2021-03-19 4:37 p.m., Mathias Homann via wrote: >>> CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and >>> attachments. Forward suspicious emails to phishing@...>>> >>> >>> Am Samstag, 6. Februar 2021, 19:11:47 CET schrieb georg180662: >>>> it *should* be a *snap or flatpak* , *not* a deb >>> After some experiments I'm strongly opposing snap - for ANYTHING, not >>> just >>> xephem: snap can't be used if your home directory is not under /home. >>> That is just stupid. >>> >>> that needs to be fixed in snapd or snap needs to die. >>> >>> Cheers >>> MH >>> >>> -- >>> Mathias Homann >>> Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant. IT Trainer >>> Mathias.Homann@... (email / XMPP) >>> LinkedIn: >>> telegram: >>> keybase: >>> gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > -- ------------- Education is contagious.
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Here in FreeBSD 12.2 amd64 working just great! from ports! on plasma.
Eric De La Cruz Lugo Merida Yucatan
Mexico
On Saturday, March 20, 2021, 3:57:34 PM CST, ab1jx <alan01346@...> wrote:
Yes, please, a tar.gz.? On a quick look flatpak is only for linux.
Xephem at least used to run and Apples and the BSDs.
"The future of ap[s on Linux"
On 3/19/21, Gilbert Gnarley < gnzxzx@...> wrote: > I would encourage us to keep a tar.gz of it also. > Is anyone in charge of doing this or are random people pitching in when > they can? > > On 3/19/21 7:29 PM, Sarty, Gordon wrote: >> I like debs. apt install handles debs ok. >> >> The limits of snap are silly but I've worked around them. >> >> I don't know what a flatpak is. >> >> Gordon >> >> On 2021-03-19 4:37 p.m., Mathias Homann via groups.io wrote: >>> CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and >>> attachments. Forward suspicious emails to phishing@...>>> >>> >>> Am Samstag, 6. Februar 2021, 19:11:47 CET schrieb georg180662: >>>> it *should* be a *snap or flatpak* , *not* a deb >>> After some experiments I'm strongly opposing snap - for ANYTHING, not >>> just >>> xephem: snap can't be used if your home directory is not under /home. >>> That is just stupid. >>> >>> that needs to be fixed in snapd or snap needs to die. >>> >>> Cheers >>> MH >>> >>> -- >>> Mathias Homann >>> Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant. IT Trainer >>> Mathias.Homann@... (email / XMPP) >>> LinkedIn: >>> telegram: >>> keybase: >>> gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > -- ------------- Education is contagious.
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Yes, please, a tar.gz. On a quick look flatpak is only for linux.
Xephem at least used to run and Apples and the BSDs.
"The future of ap[s on Linux"
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/19/21, Gilbert Gnarley <gnzxzx@...> wrote: I would encourage us to keep a tar.gz of it also.
Is anyone in charge of doing this or are random people pitching in when
they can?
On 3/19/21 7:29 PM, Sarty, Gordon wrote:
I like debs. apt install handles debs ok.
The limits of snap are silly but I've worked around them.
I don't know what a flatpak is.
Gordon
On 2021-03-19 4:37 p.m., Mathias Homann via groups.io wrote:
CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and
attachments. Forward suspicious emails to phishing@...
Am Samstag, 6. Februar 2021, 19:11:47 CET schrieb georg180662:
it *should* be a *snap or flatpak* , *not* a deb After some experiments I'm strongly opposing snap - for ANYTHING, not
just
xephem: snap can't be used if your home directory is not under /home.
That is just stupid.
that needs to be fixed in snapd or snap needs to die.
Cheers
MH
--
Mathias Homann
Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant. IT Trainer
Mathias.Homann@... (email / XMPP)
LinkedIn:
telegram:
keybase:
gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
--
-------------
Education is contagious.
|
Xephem 4.0.0 installs from AUR on an Arch Linux system
It is somewhat depressing to see how many people have trouble installing xephem on Ubuntu or other distros.?? I have compiled v. 3.7.7 several times, even though it does install on Arch Linux and Manjaro.? I have not tried 4.0.0 on Manjaro, which I use on another system, and which pretty much tracks ArchLInux.? (And Manjaro is very easy to install).
This is not on the official repo; but Arch User Repository has it, and it works well.? Many useful packages that are not found on other distros are in the AUR.
Just another reason I prefer Arch Linux over others.?? Love it!???
Alan Davis
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
I would encourage us to keep a tar.gz of it also.
Is anyone in charge of doing this or are random people pitching in when they can?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/19/21 7:29 PM, Sarty, Gordon wrote: I like debs. apt install handles debs ok.
The limits of snap are silly but I've worked around them.
I don't know what a flatpak is.
Gordon
On 2021-03-19 4:37 p.m., Mathias Homann via groups.io wrote:
CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to phishing@...
Am Samstag, 6. Februar 2021, 19:11:47 CET schrieb georg180662:
it *should* be a *snap or flatpak* , *not* a deb After some experiments I'm strongly opposing snap - for ANYTHING, not just
xephem: snap can't be used if your home directory is not under /home.
That is just stupid.
that needs to be fixed in snapd or snap needs to die.
Cheers
MH
--
Mathias Homann
Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant. IT Trainer
Mathias.Homann@... (email / XMPP)
LinkedIn:
telegram:
keybase:
gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
I like debs. apt install handles debs ok.
The limits of snap are silly but I've worked around them.
I don't know what a flatpak is.
Gordon
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2021-03-19 4:37 p.m., Mathias Homann via groups.io wrote: CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to phishing@...
Am Samstag, 6. Februar 2021, 19:11:47 CET schrieb georg180662:
it *should* be a *snap or flatpak* , *not* a deb After some experiments I'm strongly opposing snap - for ANYTHING, not just
xephem: snap can't be used if your home directory is not under /home.
That is just stupid.
that needs to be fixed in snapd or snap needs to die.
Cheers
MH
--
Mathias Homann
Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant. IT Trainer
Mathias.Homann@... (email / XMPP)
LinkedIn:
telegram:
keybase:
gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
|
Re: it is time to create a flatpak for xephem
Am Samstag, 6. Februar 2021, 19:11:47 CET schrieb georg180662: it *should* be a *snap or flatpak* , *not* a deb After some experiments I'm strongly opposing snap - for ANYTHING, not just xephem: snap can't be used if your home directory is not under /home. That is just stupid. that needs to be fixed in snapd or snap needs to die. Cheers MH -- Mathias Homann Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant. IT Trainer Mathias.Homann@... (email / XMPP) LinkedIn: telegram: keybase: gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
|
Am Mittwoch, 17. M?rz 2021, 19:24:02 CET schrieb Mathias Homann: Give me some time, I'm working on making my openSUSE spec file work for
fedora 31- and RHEL 7/8. ok, scratch RHEL7/8 for now, I'd have to package motif for rhel7 first, and rhel 8 is not an option on OBS (yet). On the plus side, packages for fedora 31-33 and Rawhide are successfulkly building and should be published and accessible sometime in the next 24h. yum repos will be here: Have a lot of fun! [L]
|
Give me some time, I'm working on making my openSUSE spec file work for fedora 31- and RHEL 7/8.
Am 17.03.2021 um 17:47 schrieb Doug Laidlaw:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks for the reply, Gordon. My favorite search engine for RPMs is
rpm.pbone.net. It lists no rpms for Fedora after Fedora 7. There is
one for OpenSUSE 15.2, but that is usually incompatible. As I wrote
to Gilbert, I will try compiling the tarball.
Doug.
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021
08:54:47 -0600 "Sarty, Gordon" <gordon.sarty@...> wrote:
Hi,
I posted here a month or so ago that I couldn't get xephem install on
my new ubuntu 20.04. So I thought I'd report that I now have it
working. I can't say exactly how I did it. I just kept hacking in
libraries until it compiled.
I am very very happy that I have xephem again.
Gordon
On 2021-03-17 8:05 a.m., Gilbert Gnarley via groups.io wrote:
CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with
links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to
phishing@...
For what's it's worth I recently installed Xephem 3.7.7 on a fresh
64 bit Fedora 33 system from the XEphem-3.7.7-disk1.tgz file.
I had to install Motif and I did that with the dnf command:
????????????? sudo install motif.x86_64, motif-devel.x86_64,
motif-static.x86_64.
I had no issues and it actually runs.
On 3/17/21 9:04 AM, Doug Laidlaw wrote:
(Third attempt to post this. :(? )
I have the originakl XEphem-3.7.7.
Today I tried to update it to the latest release and had 2 issues:
(a) Firstly, I downloaded the 2019 magnetic variation file (the
address on the NOAA site has changed), and copied it to replace
the old one, in /usr/lib/. The file apparently can't be read; the
magnetic variation should be +7.4, and a figure in that range is
shown in the new file, but the program now shows +0.0.? I checked
the ownership, and the permissions are standard.
(2) I then downloaded the SRPM for Fedora, and tried to configure
it for my distro (Mageia)? The RPM builder keeps saying that the
dependency libXmu-devel isn't met (32-bit or 64-bit.)? I had
installed both. No version is mentioned in the spec file.
*System, Mageia 8 (just released) running 64-bit.? Routinely
accepts spec files for PCLos and Fedora.
--
Mathias Homann
Senior Systems Engineer, IT Consultant, IT Trainer
Mathias.Homann@... (email,XMPP)
LinkedIn:
telegram:
keybase:
gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
|
Thanks for the reply, Gordon. My favorite search engine for RPMs is rpm.pbone.net. It lists no rpms for Fedora after Fedora 7. There is one for OpenSUSE 15.2, but that is usually incompatible. As I wrote to Gilbert, I will try compiling the tarball. Doug. On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:54:47 -0600 "Sarty, Gordon" <gordon.sarty@...> wrote: Hi,
I posted here a month or so ago that I couldn't get xephem install on
my new ubuntu 20.04. So I thought I'd report that I now have it
working. I can't say exactly how I did it. I just kept hacking in
libraries until it compiled.
I am very very happy that I have xephem again.
Gordon
On 2021-03-17 8:05 a.m., Gilbert Gnarley via groups.io wrote:
CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with
links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to
phishing@...
For what's it's worth I recently installed Xephem 3.7.7 on a fresh
64 bit Fedora 33 system from the XEphem-3.7.7-disk1.tgz file.
I had to install Motif and I did that with the dnf command:
????????????? sudo install motif.x86_64, motif-devel.x86_64,
motif-static.x86_64.
I had no issues and it actually runs.
On 3/17/21 9:04 AM, Doug Laidlaw wrote:
(Third attempt to post this. :(? )
I have the originakl XEphem-3.7.7.
Today I tried to update it to the latest release and had 2 issues:
(a) Firstly, I downloaded the 2019 magnetic variation file (the
address on the NOAA site has changed), and copied it to replace
the old one, in /usr/lib/. The file apparently can't be read; the
magnetic variation should be +7.4, and a figure in that range is
shown in the new file, but the program now shows +0.0.? I checked
the ownership, and the permissions are standard.
(2) I then downloaded the SRPM for Fedora, and tried to configure
it for my distro (Mageia)? The RPM builder keeps saying that the
dependency libXmu-devel isn't met (32-bit or 64-bit.)? I had
installed both. No version is mentioned in the spec file.
*System, Mageia 8 (just released) running 64-bit.? Routinely
accepts spec files for PCLos and Fedora.
|
ab1jx