Re: [pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-14 Thread René Dudfield
https://pygame.org/wiki/RunningInCorrectDirectory ​

Re: [pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-14 Thread Thomas Kluyver
On 14 March 2017 at 10:31, René Dudfield wrote: > Also depending on the current working dir is fairly common. I used to use > some code which would try and change the current working dir as the first > thing. But realised this broke under all the different OSes that do all > sorts of weird things

Re: [pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-14 Thread René Dudfield
Nice one! Yeah, it looks like you could fairly easily generate the config files with tooling. Data resources. Your 3 points are fine with me. mygame/data/ with DATA_DIR is a good minimum requirement. I think it would work with most other games without too much refactoring too (resource manager

Re: [pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-13 Thread Thomas Kluyver
I was able to make a flatpak package quite easily for Solarwolf, using my Python 3.6 base app. You can see the files I added to do so here: https://github.com/pygame/solarwolf/compare/master...takluyver:flatpak I also made a Python 2.7 version of the base app (which was easy) and had a go at makin

Re: [pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-08 Thread René Dudfield
Good stuff. I was planning on using solarwolf in the distribution guide I'm writing, and was planning on hooking that up to the "CLOUDY BUILDBOTS" to make distributables (win, mac, etc). It could be a good example project for people. On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > I d

Re: [pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-07 Thread Leif Theden
+1 for python3 first. Great work, Thomas, looks interesting. On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > It should be easy enough to make a base app using Python 2.7 - I just > focus on Python 3 first, because that's what I'm most interested in. > > As John pointed out, Flatpak is

Re: [pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-07 Thread Thomas Kluyver
It should be easy enough to make a base app using Python 2.7 - I just focus on Python 3 first, because that's what I'm most interested in. As John pointed out, Flatpak is a Linux technology. I have also experimented with making it easy to build Windows installers for Python applications - my proje

Re: [pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-07 Thread jcupitt
Flatpak is a linux-only thing, it's way of putting desktop programs into sandboxes that can be safely run without needing to be installed and with no danger they could mess up the rest of your system. I think the Windows equivalent is UWP apps. They also run in a sandbox and are "containerized" in

Re: [pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-06 Thread DiliupG
a python 27 version for windows would be GREATLY appreciated unless you consider python 27 users redundant and windows, not a real os. :( On 7 March 2017 at 02:28, Luke Paireepinart wrote: > Would be great to try this on my pyweek entry if you're looking for games > to test, just let me know ho

Re: [pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-06 Thread Luke Paireepinart
Would be great to try this on my pyweek entry if you're looking for games to test, just let me know how it turns out. It's called solar flair, but was developed with python 2.7 on Windows. I'm not sure on the compatibility with 3.x. - https://github.com/lukevp/pyweek23 On Mar 6, 2017 12:11 PM, "Th

[pygame] Re: Playing with Flatpak packaging

2017-03-06 Thread Thomas Kluyver
I developed this a bit further, though there's still more I hope to do with it. It turns out that building a custom runtime is discouraged; the better way to support game developers is to build a 'base app', which people can then add their own game files to. I have prepared two different base apps