I'd think a simple shell script, install-julia.sh or something, would be better than a Makefile - you don't always have build-essential installed. Putting something in contrib (along with a corresponding uninstall-julia.sh script?) and adding it to the `make binary-dist` tarball generation rules for Linux would be okay by me.
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 6:31:48 PM UTC-8, Bill Hart wrote: > > I should add that it would still be useful if there was a Makefile to > install Julia system wide after extracting the tarball. > > Bill. > > On 9 December 2015 at 03:28, Bill Hart <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9 December 2015 at 01:54, Tony Kelman <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >>> The PPA is maintained by staticfloat, aka Elliot Saba. He's had very >>> little time for Julia lately and no one has stepped up to take over the PPA >>> maintenance from him. >>> >> >> Thanks for letting me know. I'll circulate that and see if anyone locally >> wants to step up. You never know. >> >> >>> >>> You just extract the Linux tarballs, then run bin/julia. There's nothing >>> to install. If you want to have julia on your path, you can add it in your >>> bashrc. >>> >> >> Oh, that works for me now. Last time I tried it (quite some time ago now) >> it didn't. I figured the Ubuntu ppa's were there for a reason at the time, >> so didn't think much more of it. >> >> Bill. >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 3:33:53 PM UTC-8, Bill Hart wrote: >>>> >>>> By the way, I haven't used the generic Linux binaries because I >>>> couldn't figure out how to install them. There's no Makefile and no >>>> instructions. The last time I tried they didn't work when just placed in >>>> my >>>> home directory. They seem to need installation somewhere. >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure our Ubuntu users are going to prefer the ppa magic >>>> anyway. >>>> >>>> On 9 December 2015 at 00:24, Bill Hart <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've searched my machine and really haven't found libjulia.so, except >>>>> the copy I mentioned, which has no symbols. >>>>> >>>>> The PPA's seemed to be very up-to-date with v0.4.1 being available the >>>>> day it was released. They also work just fine. I think they are just >>>>> missing something. >>>>> >>>>> Where would I even report that issue? Is it a Julia developer who >>>>> maintains the staticfloat ppa's? >>>>> >>>>> Bill. >>>>> >>>>> On 8 December 2015 at 23:46, Tony Kelman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That sounds like a serious bug in the PPA packaging, or it's just >>>>>> putting libjulia somewhere you haven't found it. The PPA is not very >>>>>> actively maintained at the moment, the generic tarball binaries are the >>>>>> main binary install recommendation on Linux right now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >
