Easy Bib is a valuable tool that we use in our English Classes. In the past it has installed easily. It will no longer install for our students and has become difficult for our teachers to install as well. What has changed and how do we get approval for students to use this add on?
Related
I need some of your help.
I searched everywhere on the internet, but I could not find how to create a plugin for Gaim, the predecessor of Pidgin.
I do NOT want to create a Pidgin plugin. I want to create a Gaim plugin, but since Gaim is very old, well, it is hard to find documentation for it.
(PS : If you know how to write a plugin for Gaim, please note I want to make one for Windows - not Linux.)
(PPS : I'm french. Sorry for my bad English.)
You're going to run into a number of issues here...
First off, Gaim hasn't existed for 15 years, and of course we (the Pidgin core team many of who got involved during the Gaim days) aren't going to support it for that reason.
Secondly, building on windows has always been a pain for us as we had to carry all of the dependencies. I imagine most of the links that you might find are all long dead because of the 15 years that have passed since that. That said you might be able to get away with using our win32-dev directory from https://data.imfreedom.org/pidgin/win32-dev.7z but of course that's completely untested and that directory is used to build the Pidgin 2.x.y releases.
Finally, as you've found out, most of the documentation from Gaim has been gone for a very long time. We did set up https://gaim.pidgin.im as a joke which was the last copy of the site we had before the rename, but there's not much there when it comes to development documentation. So your best bet is to look at existing plugins. I still have the source code for guifications1 available at https://keep.imfreedom.org/grim/guifications1/file/default.
I am writing a perl program that I want to share with others, eventually via cpan. it's getting to the point where I should start thinking about this on a bigger scale.
a decade ago, I used the h2xs package maker once. is this still the most recommended way to get started? there used to be a couple of alternatives. because I am starting from scratch with very little recollection, anything simple will do at this point.
I need to read a few long text files (not perl modules) for configuration. where do I put them and how do I access them, no matter where the module is installed? (FindBin?) _DATA_ is inconvenient.
I need to provide an executable (linux and osx). can putting an executable into the user's path be part of the module installation? (how?)
I would like to be able to continue developing it, run it for test purposes, have a new version, repack it, and reupload it easily.
before uploading to cpan, can I share a cpan bundle for easy local installation to downloaders and testers?
# cpan < mybundle.cpanbundle
advice appreciated.
regards,
/iaw
If anything I say conflicts with Andy Lester, listen to him instead. He knows more than I ever will.
Module::Starter is a good, simple way to generate module scaffolding. My take is it's been the default for this sort of thing for a few years now.
For configuration/support files, I think you probably want File::ShareDir. Might be worth considering Data::Section if it's just a matter of needing multiple __DATA__ sections though.
You can certainly put scripts in the bin subdirectory of your distribution, the build tool will put it in the right place at install time.
A build tool will take care of the work-flow you describe.
Bundles are something different. You make a distribution and share the tarball/archive.
If you set up PERL5LIB appropriately, then repeat make test, make install, make dist to your heart's content. For development/sharing purposes a lot of projects do their work on github or similar - makes it easy to share. They have private accounts for business purposes too. Very useful if you want to rewind and see where/when a problem was introduced.
If you get a copy of cpanm (simple to install, fairly lightweight) then it can install from a tar.gz file or even direct from a git repository. You can also tell it to install to a local dir (local::lib compatible - another utility that's very useful).
Hopefully that's reasonably up-to-date as of 2014. You may see Dist::Zilla mentioned for module development. My understanding is that it's most useful for those with a large family of CPAN distributions to manage. Oh - if you (or other readers) aren't aware of them, do check out autodie and Try::Tiny around errors and exceptions, Moose (for a full-featured object-oriented framework) and Moo (for a smaller lightweight version).
I think that advice is all reasonably non-controversial. I find cpanm to be much more pleasant than the "full" cpan client, and Moo seems pretty popular nowadays too.
Take a look at Module::Starter and its much more capable (and complex) successor Dist::Zilla.
Whatever you do, don't use h2xs. Module::Starter was created specifically because h2xs was such an inappropriate tool for creating distributions.
I need to do some UML diagrams, and doing the work right in Eclipse by reverse engineering classes is the best/fastest approach for me. Taking advise found elsewhere on Stack Overflow, I'm playing with eUML2.
The problem I have is this... I installed the Studio demo, and it worked well for us. However, for now, I just need to do the class diagrams which are available in the free edition. So I uninstalled the studio demo, and installed the free. However, it still thinks I have the studio demo installed as the background of my diagrams has it in 24pt font, and in the top right of the page it says "* Evaluation *".
Reading around, I assume this issue is around the problem with the license file contained in the install of the free version... or the fact that it is missing from the free version.
Anyone here figured out the license file issue with eUML2? Where can I find a free license, or an install with the free license in it? Where is the license stored in my install? can I just kill it?
I could ask this question on the Soyatec forum, however this question has been asked a number of times, with no answers provided. Either they do not monitor their forums, or one must pay the 100€ price for support to get an answer.
The studio license is installing a file in your folder user/.eclipse/configuration/... If you erase this file then the tool will consider it is a new install of the software.
Having said that I would not recommend to use eUML because it is full of bugs and adding UML tags in your code. A real mess mixing code and model !!
For your information it seems to me that it is intentional not to answer to any question and stop the Soyatec company.
Don't forget that Soyatec is more or less a kind of Omondo spin off. 4 shareholders having created the omondo company left it with the code of EclipseUML 2005. I know that the tool is now totally different because being revamped by a new team but the architecture is still more or less the same.
Omondo Corp is currently being under acquisition by a large US software company and once the sell will completed it could be possible that they claim redundancy package, or company shares etc... to the main shareholder who sacked them few years ago. They have a split contract but it seems that it is not valid.
Just money, always money. This world is disguising :-)
I thought this would be somewhere on the Web, but I couldn't Google it:
Given the complexity involved in creating an MSI package (compared to NSIS, InnoSetup, etc.), what would be a compelling reason to go through all the mess (using MSVS's crappy setup project wizard, learn a whole new langauge/ecosystem just to make the installer (WiX), or pay heavy license fees (InstallShield)) for the sake of making an MSI installer?
Would be nice to have real world opinions or experience (even to prove that MSI is really worthless) other than the obvious MSDN page, for instance :)
I don't think there is one prime advantage for all situations. Here are some things I like about it, vs other kinds of installers:
Install logic and code is contained in a database, which is in an accessible format.
I like this a lot when I'm debugging. Rather than rebuilding your installer, you can directly edit the database with a tool like Orca (free database editing download from MS), then run the install again to test your changes. Update your custom code, temporarily condition something out, change the order of operations, whatever you need to do.
Patching. The Installer service and its corresponding tools know how to create patches containing deltas of updated files, rather than complete files. It allows maintenance sizes to remain reasonable.
Administrative Images. The installer can create an administrative image. If you've generated patches, you can apply the patches to the administrative image, and new installations can then be run from the administrative image rather than the original installer. Like slipstreaming patches in OS images. If you're pushing your app out to a large number of machines, it's pretty cool to not need to push a bunch of patches out post-install.
Other interesting features include transforms, run from source, detect and repair, component sharing, and so on.
Take a look at this:
https://serverfault.com/questions/11670/advantages-of-using-msi-files
MSI (or ClickOnce) was required to obtain the Windows Vista Logo Program (Microsoft official certification). I believe this requirement was removed with Windows 7, but it's still easier to get certification with MSI (see here).
You don't need to buy any expensive 3rd party installer package though. If you're going for MSI, I suggest you use WIX and learn it. Once you're familiar with it, it works pretty well.
Another good read is:
Windows Installer: Benefits and Implementation for System Administrators
I've been a full time setup developer for 14 years. My first 7 years were InstallScript Setup.exe style projects and my last 7 years have been MSI based. At first I resisted MSI and then after 6 months of using it I became a true believer in how much better it is.
I'm pretty certain that there are enterprises that require MSI formats to remote bulk install an application on thousands of machines. However I don't deal with such organizations so don't know for certain.
I started using Dist::Zilla several months ago. However, at YAPC::NA someone mentioned that they use ShipIt instead. Then today I noticed a .shipit file in miyagawa's cpanminus directory on github, so I decided to look into it some more...
My initial impression is that ShipIt has a subset of what is available with Dist::Zilla, but I don't want to jump to conclusions. So, for those who have had experience with both, what are the strengths/weaknesses of ShipIt vs Dist::Zilla?
crossposted at perlmonks
I'm the author of Dist::Zilla.
I evaluated ShipIt pretty extensively before choosing to go ahead and write Dist::Zilla, and initially they covered almost exactly the same problem space: doing all the boring grunt work of building and uploading a CPAN distribution. All of the features that Dist::Zilla now has beyond ShipIt are later additions, more or less.
If you only need the features of ShipIt, I still advise you to strongly consider Dist::Zilla, for one very simple reason: hackability. If I had been able to not write something new, I would've used ShipIt, but I found it to be underdocumented and difficult to extend. Its plugins were not generic enough and the core behavior made too many assumptions about how you'd like to work.
Dist::Zilla was inspired specifically by this problem: it turned everything into a plugin, and every plugin was given a very, very small interface so that its assumptions would be forcibly limited.
One benefit of ShipIt over Dist::Zilla is that ShipIt has (to the best of my knowledge) no plugins that will alter the way you actually write your code. This means your documentation will still look the same, you will still have a Makefile.PL, and so on. Some hackers don't like that so many DZ-based dists fundamentally change the assumptions of how to test and build CPAN code from its source repository. ShipIt will never change that.
It's possible to avoid using any such plugins with Dist::Zilla, but in general my experience is that people do use them, almost always, in one form or another.
As far as I can tell, my initial impressions were correct.
ShipIt provides functionality for releasing distributions:
keeping track of version numbers
integrating with version control
uploading to CPAN
displaying the changelog file in an editor so that you can edit it before release.
Dist::Zilla, by default, provides the ability to upload distributions to CPAN with a single command (i.e. dzil release). Dist::Zilla also has functionality for creating new distributions (i.e. dzil new My::New::Module). It also automatically generates so many of the files that I used to have to maintain by hand.
Using plugins, Dist::Zilla seems able to provide most, if not all, of the functionality available with ShipIt. It is also relatively easy to add brand new features using plugins.