Update BUILD instructions #500
Conversation
Maintainer of primary repo has said to use "Master" instead of the Stable branch because of dltray, etc. problems. Further, `sudo make install` *can* in fact harm your system, but if you are on any mainstream distribution, `checkinstall` is actually available in most repositories and builds a native-package-manager-compatibile package around what `sudo make install` does and then *installs* that package so you can easily revert afterwards. This tends to be the safer option.
| @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ You can download the source either using Git or by mannually downloading a tarba | |||
| The branch can be customized by setting the `-b` or `--branch` argument. Select `stable` to download the current stable source or use `master` to get the most current unstable source containing the latest features. | |||
|
|
|||
| ```shell | |||
| git clone https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher.git -b stable | |||
| git clone https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher.git -b master | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using master is not a universal solution to every problem. Yes, the branch is fairly stable. stable however points to the latest release, which is always preferable for users.
The actual issue is that I have not got to making another release in a long time... The next release will be 3.0.0, but there is quite some work left.
You could mention master as an alternative, something like "if stable is broken, please git checkout master and try again" might do.
| @@ -55,8 +55,8 @@ make | |||
|
|
|||
| Now you may create a distribution package or alternatively install the source for testing purpose. | |||
|
|
|||
| *Note: This may harm your system. It's highly recommended to build and install distribution packages instead.* | |||
| Directly running `make install` will carry a high risk of breaking your system, so it's suggested that you use `checkinstall` instead. Install `checkinstall` with your system's package manager, and then run the installation via checkinstall. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
checkinstall has zero advantage over using CMake's CPack to generate a .deb or .rpm, but has multiple disadvantages. checkinstall is pretty much a workaround used when there is no alternative. It can break your system, too, and does not provide universal packages which work on other computers as well. AppImageLauncher has a tested CPack configuration which is also used for the officially released packages.
Compared to checkinstall, CPack does not require root access, does not actually write files on your system and does not depend on just comparing the file trees before and after make install, making it a more reliable and less invasive solution. Additionally, CPack is aware of the so-called maintainer scripts which perform some post-install tasks and post-removal cleanup.
My suggestion is to have people run CPack themselves to generate packages if those are needed.
|
Thank you for your contribution. I left some comments. |
Maintainer of primary repo has said to use "Master" instead of the Stable branch because of dltray, etc. problems. Further,
sudo make installcan in fact harm your system, but if you are on any mainstream distribution,checkinstallis actually available in most repositories and builds a native-package-manager-compatibile package around whatsudo make installdoes and then installs that package so you can easily revert afterwards. This tends to be the safer option.