From FreeOrionWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

SCons was just added as a requirement to build GG, however I'm (only) able to build it using the MSVC project files, so it's not really required, at least for Windows.

MSVC compile: SDL library directory

I don't have a \SDL-1.2.7\VisualC7\SDLmain\Release directory, though there is a C:\SDL-1.2.7\lib directory

Please read the file entitle visualc.html in the root of your SDL directory --Tbullock 02:59, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

Debian package

I am learning to create .deb package for linux that are compile package that autoinstall them. This and rpm package are the more used for all and if I create it more linux people will download the game.

I'm working on .deb, you can help, if you want -- Yoghurt 13:16, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)

Ted's Separate Compile Pages

Ted, why are you making separate compile pages for Windows / Linux that have no real content other than links to your off-site guide? Is there a problem with links in the main compile page...? Are you planning to put the whole guide in the wiki eventually?

In any case, you could probably put the links in the appropriate sections of the compile article, rather than right at the top as now... especially with the prominent redlink to Compile in Linux.

Unless there's a reason to do things as you have...?

Geoff the Medio 02:43, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

I agree. Those links should probably not be at the top of the page. As you were writing this comment I was writing a separate comment on trying to organize the compile information for the different OS's. What do you think? --Tbullock 03:06, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

Organize Large Compile Page

The Compile page seems to be gettings little large and would be even more so if. I would like to pull data out of the compile page to make it easier to find the relevant pieces of information.

I propose that the page Compile be organized as follows:

  • Overview
  • Hardware Requirements <- is this really necessary on a compile page? I've compiled large parts of the linux operating system on a 386, just took a while.
  • Software Dependancies
  • Getting the Source
  • Getting the Artwork
  • Operating System Specific
  • Troubleshooting

The pages Compile In Windows, Compile In Linux, Compile In MacOS would contain all the respective information needed to build FreeOrion in those environments.


I think we need to have two kinds of instructions... one kind being rather general or high level, like the lists of dependencies and versions for each OS, and the other being quite specific, explaining how and where to get each dependency and if necessary how to compile it and/or set up compiler and linker include directories to find it with various tools (MSVC 2005 IDE, MSVC 2003 IDE, free MSVC++ compiler / SCons), like the users' stories. The general instructions, for both Linux and Windows, can stay in the main compile page. Detailed instructions for each compiler or distro can be put into separate pages, such as your guide which is specific for MSVC 2005 on Windows, and not just Windows as your titling of it would seem to suggest, or even MSVC, which could include previous versions from the one you're using, particularly since there are pre-made MSVC 2003 solution files and SCons stuff set up, which makes the process of using each of those tools somewhat different.
So, I'd suggest putting links to relevant setup-specific articles, such as yours, at the top of the Windows subsection of the Compile article, and then putting the general instructions below on the main Compile page, and more detailed instructions in separate articles.
Also, as mentioned in the talk page for it before you moved it, I accordingly suggest more specifically titling your guide, to mention MSVC 2005 explicitly, as again it's not a general Windows guide (and isn't even a general MSVC guide).
Geoff the Medio 03:38, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

Ok, that sounds reasonable. So we could have a picture somewhat like the following:

  • Overview
  • Software Dependancies
    • Linux Dependancies
    • Windows Dependancies <-I believe the same regardless of IDE versions, but not necessarily
  • Getting the Source
    • FreeOrion
    • GiGi
  • Getting the Artwork
  • Operating System Specific
    • Windows
      • MSVC 2005 IDE <-Maybe one for Express Edition and one for Pro? Is Express Edition Free or no?Yes it is
        • Troubleshooting
      • MSVC 2003 IDE
        • Troubleshooting
      • MSVC 2003 Free Commandline Compiler with Scons
        • Troubleshooting
    • Linux
      • Scons Stuff Here
      • <User Stories as is>
        • Troubleshooting
    • Mac OS
      • Anything Here? Maybe just create it and leave it blank until somebody updates it.

--Tbullock 04:29, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

I just read that the Express Edition of Visual Studio 2005 is Free until Nov 6, 2006. After that it will be $49 USD, but if you download it now, you get to keep your copy even after the deadline has passed at no cost. (Wow, I sound like a Microsoft Salesman...hmmm).
This means a couple of things:
  1. People using the 2003 commandline compiler can switch to the 2005 commandline/IDE for free so no need to support the 2003 version at all
  2. Scons, (although still a possibility) is not a minimum requirement on Windows so it doesn't get a graphical howto by Me, but maybe somebody else would like to step up to the plate.

--Tbullock 12:32, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

Ok, so here is what I am going to do. I'm not going to touch anything else on this page until my document is finished and can be used by somebody who is has Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition (or greater) installed.

--Tbullock 13:03, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

Just because someone can download MSVC 2005 doesn't mean they will, for several reasons:
  • SCons isn't just a command-line replacement for the IDE. It also speeds up compilation times significantly by not duplicating compilation work across the three FO projects.
    • (Ted)It should be possible to replicate this by sharing intermediate build data between projects(/Ted)
If you know how to do that, then please do so... A big deal was made of the benefit of SCons in this regard, so I figured it was non-trivial... Or is it different in MSVC 2005? Geoff the Medio 20:27, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
  • People are probably set up and running MSVC 2003 and aren't necessarily inclined to switch over, particularly if they have other projects they're working on that use 2003 and aren't inclined to or able to switch.
    • (Ted)Express 2005 will sit next to other versions without interfering and can also import vc++ projects from previous version(/Ted)
  • People may have a more expensive or full-featured version of 2003. The freely available 2005 version is, you state, the Express Edition, which is presumably limited significantly... perhaps enough such that the transition from 2003 Professional or Academic to 2005 Express would be a net loss in functionality.
    • (Ted)While my instructions are geared towards MSVC2005, they could also be used to build a project in MSVC2003, so somebody with a Pro version of 2003 would not need to switch(/Ted)
  • After Nov 6, 2006, the 2005 edition won't be free, so we can't assume people will have it.
    • (Ted)Yes, but Orcas with be out shortly after that, although it is possible it could be a show stopper if it wasn't free but I imagine that their will be something available... Microsoft doesn't stop jamming stuff down your throat once they have your mouth open just because a new version is out.(/Ted)
What's Orcas? Geoff the Medio 20:27, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
(Ted)Orcas will be Visual Studio 8.1 or 9 and should be released after Vista releases later this year.(/Ted)
Geoff the Medio 13:12, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

You don't really need to make a full separate tutorial for SCons. It just replaces the compilation steps for GG and FO which you'd set up in the IDE. All the dependencies that can't be downloaded precompiled will still have be be built in presumably the same way as would be discussed in your tutorial, which IMO is the hard part. The other dependencies will need to be gotten as well, whether downloaded precompiled or built from source as you seem inclined to have done.
Geoff the Medio 13:17, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

Also, if you get to get MSVC2005 project files set up and working, you should talk with tzlaine about getting them put into SVN in a preconfigured state. There's no reason to make everyone go through the whole process of following your guide if you can do most of it for them... (hence the current preconfigured MSVC2003 project files, and availability of precompiled libraries). Geoff the Medio 20:27, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

Yes, this is my intention. Although we should be hosting all those libaries here on this site as part of a here is what you need to get going starter kit. A new user could use that or follow my instructions to compile it all by themself. Ideally it would be as easy to get started as downloading GiGi, downloading FO, download library dependancies for your architecture, point the compiler at the libaries and source code and push compile.
Then again, I am always a fan of compiling products entirely from scratch. (must be my days with Linux from Scratch). and I know from personal experience that getting your hands in there and putting it all together from a pile of source code is very rewarding.
--Tbullock 12:56, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)

log4cpp 3.5rc3 ubuntu package

In the description it says the log4cpp package is too old, but in my synaptic package manager it finds the new log4cpp libraries (liblog4cpp4-dev 0.3.5RC3). Am i confusing something here, or is the wiki article out of date? --EoD 08:27, 7 Apr 2007 (EDT)

If the package is not up-to-date, then the wiki article is probably out of date. Feel free to update it... Geoff the Medio 16:28, 7 Apr 2007 (EDT)
that's the problem; i'm not able to edit the article ;) --EoD 08:50, 8 Apr 2007 (EDT)
The Debian links are also out of date. The proper links should go to and and I really don't feel like making an account just to change that. 14:14, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
I've updated the links on the Compile page. Thanks. Geoff the Medio 15:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for updating ;). @unknown IP: An registration wouldn't help you in this case. The site is change-protected (also for registered users). --EoD 11:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Unprotect the article

May you please unprotect the article, that at least registered users can edit it? The article really seems to be outdated. --EoD 16:27, 15 Jul 2007 (EDT)

Done, though if it's heavily spammed (as many pages linked off the main page tend to be), I'll reprotect it. Restricting to registered users doesn't help much, as spammers and vandals seem able to automatically register accounts. Geoff the Medio 17:42, 15 Jul 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. I'll try to change some things, as long as it's unprotected. --EoD 08:18, 16 Jul 2007 (EDT)