Am 01.02.2017 um 07:31 schrieb René Dudfield: > I agree that many of the things on your wonderful list would be > useful. I've also starting adding them to a plan (see at the bottom). > > I still think promoting packaging is still very useful, and a very low > effort thing to do. > > Game distribution for general users should definitely not happen on > the cheeseshop. Especially not as the primary method. The audience I'm > thinking of is more other game developers (and people who will > eventually become developers). > > I think the package index is better than 'random free upload webpage > on the internet', which many are uploading code to now. Also pyweek > has proven that a code template can provide a helpful structure for > people using other packaging tools. Often times, eventually, someone > figures out the latest work arounds for the various packaging tools > and a script appears which works for many platforms. Of course every > year platforms update, and the packaging tools develop new > features...*cough* bugs *cough* that means that last years script has > stopped working. > > But now with free CI options... it seems more possible to make a tool > which builds peoples apps for them. But again would require > maintenance. By leaning on the python packaging infrastructure, we > access to all the tools for packaging libraries. > > The pygame website, and things like pyweek have thousands of games on > there already. There's also thousands of people who look through those > games every month. I'm fully intending to improve apon the features on > the website for people releasing games. > > We need to try and make it as simple as dragging a game folder onto > website. Because that's basically what people are doing to upload > their games. Some people don't even know git, github, pypi, travis... > all those things. Hopefully we can take much of the tediousness out of it. > > > I'm hoping to collaborate with DR0ID, who is working on the pyweek > 'skellington' base code on a file structure we can use by combining it > with the pypa 'sampleproject'. > > I've started writing a series of blog posts about all this stuff... > about the benefits of packaging games for the python community, what > we can do to make distributing games easier. > http://renesd.blogspot.com/2017/01/promoting-pypi-for-python-game-releases.html > http://renesd.blogspot.com/2017/01/using-common-file-layout-lets-us-create.html > > > Looking forward to the day when we have build bots package games up > for android, mac, windows, ubuntu, pip, raspberrypi etc, etc, then > have things automatically do release announcements and such. > > > cheers! > > > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Thomas Kluyver <tak...@gmail.com > <mailto:tak...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > My tldr: PyPI and pip are the wrong tools for game distribution, > there are better places to focus effort. > > If the instructions to get your game say 'pip install yourgame', > you're limiting your audience to people who have Python installed > and are comfortable with the command line. Even among those > people, you may find yourself having to explain about using pip3 > on some systems, or about why running 'sudo pip ...' is a bad idea. > > PyPI and pip exist primarily to distribute Python libraries. We > use them secondarily to distribute command-line tools, because > it's a quick and easy alternative to building packages for > different platforms, and the kind of people who use a tool like > 'nosetests' know how to install it with pip. They're not a good > fit for GUI applications where the user shouldn't need to know > that Python is in use. > > So, where do I think we should focus effort? > > * Tools to package up Python /applications/ into convenient > installable bundles > o Shameless plug: Pynsist is a tool I made to build Windows > installers. > o I'd particularly like to see work around the new Linux > application packaging formats, Flatpak and Snappy. Can we > make a tool that takes some form of description and builds > both kinds of package? > o The BeeWare projec (http://pybee.org/ ) is doing some > interesting work on packaging for mobile platforms. > o Stretch goal: can we start with a single application > description and build packages for various platforms? I'm > sceptical, but it would be cool, even if the packages > lacked some polish. > * Guides on preparing & submitting games to various app > marketplaces: > o Platform owners: Microsoft, Apple, Google, Canonical... > o Third party: Steam, Itch... > * (Maybe) A better catalogue of non-professional games, for > creators who may not want to put their games up on Steam or > whatever. I'm still unsure if there's an actual gap to be > filled here, though, and what shape it is if it exists. > > > Thomas > > On 25 December 2016 at 00:52, René Dudfield <ren...@gmail.com > <mailto:ren...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hello, > > tldr; promote using pypi and pip for game releases? > > > With all the great work from lots of people pygame is often > easily installable via pip - the standard python packaging > system. We still have some issues, but it works quite well on > major platforms. > > Now our games can be installed with pip too! > > */pip install yourgame/* > > Since many people enter the python world via games, it makes > sense that they get used to publishing python packages as > well. I've sat in python groups, and still 75% of the room has > never published a python package despite many of them working > with python every day. > > As a game developer why should I use pip? Firstly, there is a > very large audience of people who can install python games. > You don't need to worry about the platform issues of binaries > so much. If they have pip on their platform, then they can > install your game. Other benefits of publishing on pypi > include syndication, since many people tweet and copy all the > releases on pypi. Another benefit is all the infrastructure > work that goes into pypi, CDN networks and such. > > I suggest efforts should be applied to: > > * updating tutorials, and spreading the idea of publishing > python games to the cheeseshop (pyweek, pygame.org > <http://pygame.org> tutorials, external tutorials, books, > youtube videos) > * base code for a pygame game in a standard structure > (skellington, cookiecutter etc) > * contacting other python game communities to suggest pypi > should be a priority > * making the cheeseshop/pypi itself a better platform for > game publishing needs > > What pypi doesn't do currently? It doesn't do many things that > a good game release system would do. Video/youtube links, and > even screenshots aren't available. Discussion has been > disabled (they found it way too hard to moderate). Even > ratings are not on there (which can help for > discover-ability). Another issue is that closed source things > aren't really looked apon nicely there(but it is allowed). > Finally, packaging in python still isn't the easiest thing > (it's definitely not as easily as uploading a zip file, but it > is waaaaaay nicer now than ever before). > > Any work that goes into making the packaging system for python > better for games helps out with other python game communities > as well. We can perhaps even gain allies from the other > communities to help improve things for games in general. > > Here are where the pypi projects live. > > * https://github.com/pypa > * (current pypi) - https://github.com/pypa/pypi-legacy > <https://github.com/pypa/pypi-legacy> > * (next gen pypi) - https://github.com/pypa/warehouse > <https://github.com/pypa/warehouse> > > > > I packaged my game Bullet dodger using pip because is simpler than having to make an installer for every platform (.deb, .rpm...).
sudo pip3 install bullet_dodger Yeah, it simplifies a lot of things and it's also a better way to manage dependencies.
