If there is no problem for doing that again in the future (if we decide to change something in FreeCAD 0.16 AppImage) i would say yes. It's time to do that.sgrogan wrote:So, are we ready to post the 0.16.6707 on the FreeCAD/FreeCAD/releases page?
appimage
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: appimage
Re: appimage
I don't really care either way. Most serious FEM users are using a newer version anyway, and as I've mentioned before we call the executable so we don't need to worry about library conflicts.triplus wrote:My question would therefore be should we care and try to fix that or should we just remove CalculiX from the AppImage?
OK, I'll put this version up tonight on the releases page (no special release, you guys win ) with a note about calculix and a request to post issues in this thread and not the BugTracker.triplus wrote:If there is no problem for doing that again in the future (if we decide to change something in FreeCAD 0.16 AppImage) i would say yes. It's time to do that.
"fight the good fight"
Re: appimage
FreeCAD AppImages is Alive! https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/releases/tag/0.16
Thanks everyone who has participated (especially @probono)! I'm sure we can make it better, but this is a good step.
Tell your Friends
Thanks everyone who has participated (especially @probono)! I'm sure we can make it better, but this is a good step.
Tell your Friends
"fight the good fight"
Re: appimage
NIce! Thanks for all the work!sgrogan wrote:FreeCAD AppImages is Alive! https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/releases/tag/0.16
Thanks everyone who has participated (especially @probono)! I'm sure we can make it better, but this is a good step.
Tell your Friends
Alone you go faster. Together we go farther
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Re: appimage
Congratulations
The issue with "The Linux distribution" is that there are to many to count, and it would be almost impossible to depend on all of them to have any library that is needed for running FreeCAD. If all batteries are to be included, all libraries that are needed to run FreeCAD should be in the appimage some time in the future.triplus wrote:If the situation for CalculiX is similar and it can be obtained easily from the target Linux distribution repositories we might not need to care about it from AppImage perspective. But we could choose to care.
Need help? Feel free to ask, but please read the guidelines first
Re: appimage
Looking good!
@cox
I was thinking about this and for now i feel FreeCAD only AppImage makes sense. For the rest we can listen to feedback from users over time. Getting OCE 0.18 on the PPA likely will be made easier now:
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20021
As likely packages in Debian will be updated. Getting OCE 0.18 in AppImage for FreeCAD 0.17 should therefore be a priority as it will enable some BOA tools to work (as they currently aren't available with OCE 0.17).
@cox
I was thinking about this and for now i feel FreeCAD only AppImage makes sense. For the rest we can listen to feedback from users over time. Getting OCE 0.18 on the PPA likely will be made easier now:
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20021
As likely packages in Debian will be updated. Getting OCE 0.18 in AppImage for FreeCAD 0.17 should therefore be a priority as it will enable some BOA tools to work (as they currently aren't available with OCE 0.17).
Re: appimage
triplus wrote:@cox
I was thinking about this and for now i feel FreeCAD only AppImage makes sense. For the rest we can listen to feedback from users over time. Getting OCE 0.18 on the PPA likely will be made easier now:
Without calculix this is the case! The key here is that for calculix, gmesh, OpenSCAD, external editor etc. FreeCAD calls the external executable in a separate (sub)process. The external executable uses its' libs, FreeCAD uses its', but they don't need to match. If they do it's a bug. This is a time that where licensing issues benefit us. The (sub)processes are independent.cox wrote:Congratulations
The issue with "The Linux distribution" is that there are to many to count, and it would be almost impossible to depend on all of them to have any library that is needed for running FreeCAD. If all batteries are to be included, all libraries that are needed to run FreeCAD should be in the appimage some time in the future.triplus wrote:If the situation for CalculiX is similar and it can be obtained easily from the target Linux distribution repositories we might not need to care about it from AppImage perspective. But we could choose to care.
TLDR: In FreeCAD prefs choose a path to your systems executable. If a package isn't available on some distro we will need to re-evaluate.
"fight the good fight"
Re: appimage
Good argument, I was not aware of this loose coupling, witch reduces my concerns quite a bit.sgrogan wrote:The key here is that for calculix, gmesh, OpenSCAD, external editor etc. FreeCAD calls the external executable in a separate (sub)process. The external executable uses its' libs, FreeCAD uses its', but they don't need to match. If they do it's a bug.
Need help? Feel free to ask, but please read the guidelines first
Re: appimage
I have a feeling if we would fix CalculiX issue some users could complain as they wouldn't want to use the one in AppImage.
@sgrogan
About the licence. If the combination of licences used would be incompatible no amount of packaging would change that.
@sgrogan
About the licence. If the combination of licences used would be incompatible no amount of packaging would change that.
Re: appimage
I agree, remove calculix from the AppImage, to avoid confusion, the license is irrelevant.triplus wrote:I have a feeling if we would fix CalculiX issue some users could complain as they wouldn't want to use the one in AppImage, without regard to the license.
@sgrogan
About the licence. If the combination of licences used would be incompatible no amount of packaging would change that.
I'm having trouble articulating my opinion. An aggregation is OK as @probono has pointed out.
Maybe @cox can explain more clearly. @cox seems to understand what I am trying to explain more clearly.
"fight the good fight"