Installer banalities
by Gary "ChunkyKs" Briggs · in Torque Game Engine · 11/23/2004 (9:29 am) · 6 replies
Heya,
The linux installer is a linux binary.
I'm not looking to be incendiary [this morning feels like I am, though - apologies], there is one substantial issue with this. If I download the installer and [say] burn to a CD, USB flash media, or anything else along those lines, I can't actually run it on some linux boxes.
As a security concern, a lot of linux boxes set the "noexec" flag on removable media, so that people can't just pop a CD into the drive and attempt to execute stuff on it. I do this on all my boxes. Modern friendly distro's don't do this [they support an equivalent of autorun.inf], but many still do, and many people set it on purpose.
Anyways.
Is there a reason that this installer is used for the Torque source? Why not use loki_setup [from icculus.org], as is used on all of the other linux packages on gg.com [if nothing else, I see many gg.com users on the loki_setup mailing list].
If you use loki_setup and makeself, then that noexec thing isn't an issue since the best [arguably correct] way to install it is "sh file.run", which doesn't require you to execute anything on the CD.
Sorry, I'm kind of a diehard old-fashioned *nix user. I actually prefer CVS to an installer, and would ideally rather just keep tarballs around than installers, anyways.
Thanks,
Gary (-;
PS Yes, I know the easy answer is "copy it to a tmp dir first", but that's unsporting, and inconvenient.
The linux installer is a linux binary.
I'm not looking to be incendiary [this morning feels like I am, though - apologies], there is one substantial issue with this. If I download the installer and [say] burn to a CD, USB flash media, or anything else along those lines, I can't actually run it on some linux boxes.
As a security concern, a lot of linux boxes set the "noexec" flag on removable media, so that people can't just pop a CD into the drive and attempt to execute stuff on it. I do this on all my boxes. Modern friendly distro's don't do this [they support an equivalent of autorun.inf], but many still do, and many people set it on purpose.
Anyways.
Is there a reason that this installer is used for the Torque source? Why not use loki_setup [from icculus.org], as is used on all of the other linux packages on gg.com [if nothing else, I see many gg.com users on the loki_setup mailing list].
If you use loki_setup and makeself, then that noexec thing isn't an issue since the best [arguably correct] way to install it is "sh file.run", which doesn't require you to execute anything on the CD.
Sorry, I'm kind of a diehard old-fashioned *nix user. I actually prefer CVS to an installer, and would ideally rather just keep tarballs around than installers, anyways.
Thanks,
Gary (-;
PS Yes, I know the easy answer is "copy it to a tmp dir first", but that's unsporting, and inconvenient.
#2
01/20/2005 (3:02 pm)
You just met one (that doesn't understand the whole tarball or rpm thing that is). One of the main reasons I don't use Linux is because it is difficult to understand the install process. Our concern is not for Linux security, it is for lack of support calls. Linux takes a large amount of support and effort for very, very little returns. We call it a labor of love, but it is sometimes a hard thing to love. We like the installer for Linux.
#3
Ah. See, that was kind of my initial point. If someone has the current installer burned to CD, the process to install it is:
cp /mnt/cdrom/installer.bin /tmp
chmox +x /tmp/installer.bin
/tmp/installer.bin
Versus using loki setup, for which the process is:
sh /mnt/cdrom/installer.run
Mmmf. Probably a matter of personal taste, and if you're really getting fewer support requests because of the new installer, then it's absolutely worth it.
Good enough answer, for me. That's always been the deal with linux anyways - "I like it".
If nothing else, I really appreciate all of the linux work you do. I run linux exclusively [probably pretty clear at this point, from my forum posts], and if you didn't support linux, I wouldn't have bought a single thing from you.
As it is, I've currently given you... *checks*... 180USD. That's two hundred bucks from just one linux guy, and I doubt that I'm the only one. Is it worth it? Who knows.
At this point, though, I'd like to just stick up one of my favorite pro-linux game-coding-related links: www.pyrogon.com/about/diary/2_26_2002.php [mirror on icculus.org]
Gary (-;
01/20/2005 (3:41 pm)
Quote:One of the main reasons I don't use Linux is because it is difficult to understand the install process.
Ah. See, that was kind of my initial point. If someone has the current installer burned to CD, the process to install it is:
cp /mnt/cdrom/installer.bin /tmp
chmox +x /tmp/installer.bin
/tmp/installer.bin
Versus using loki setup, for which the process is:
sh /mnt/cdrom/installer.run
Mmmf. Probably a matter of personal taste, and if you're really getting fewer support requests because of the new installer, then it's absolutely worth it.
Quote:We like the installer for Linux.
Good enough answer, for me. That's always been the deal with linux anyways - "I like it".
Quote:Linux takes a large amount of support and effort for very, very little returns. We call it a labor of love, but it is sometimes a hard thing to love.
If nothing else, I really appreciate all of the linux work you do. I run linux exclusively [probably pretty clear at this point, from my forum posts], and if you didn't support linux, I wouldn't have bought a single thing from you.
As it is, I've currently given you... *checks*... 180USD. That's two hundred bucks from just one linux guy, and I doubt that I'm the only one. Is it worth it? Who knows.
At this point, though, I'd like to just stick up one of my favorite pro-linux game-coding-related links: www.pyrogon.com/about/diary/2_26_2002.php [mirror on icculus.org]
Gary (-;
#4
From your quote... the only people that this will affect (ie. the noexec flag) would be those people who were knowledgeable with Linux to some extent to begin with. For people like Jeff (no offense Jeff) dropping the CD into the drive and exec'ing it through your file manager should kick-start the install process.
If you have disable exec'ing binary files off your removable media... YOU are responsible for any problems you might have running applications from there.
Also as a tech savvy Linux user, why don't you just write a shell script to automate the 3 line process you described..
cd-exec.sh
--------------
01/20/2005 (3:55 pm)
Quote:
As a security concern, a lot of linux boxes set the "noexec" flag on removable media, so that people can't just pop a CD into the drive and attempt to execute stuff on it. I do this on all my boxes. Modern friendly distro's don't do this [they support an equivalent of autorun.inf], but many still do, and many people set it on purpose.
From your quote... the only people that this will affect (ie. the noexec flag) would be those people who were knowledgeable with Linux to some extent to begin with. For people like Jeff (no offense Jeff) dropping the CD into the drive and exec'ing it through your file manager should kick-start the install process.
If you have disable exec'ing binary files off your removable media... YOU are responsible for any problems you might have running applications from there.
Also as a tech savvy Linux user, why don't you just write a shell script to automate the 3 line process you described..
cd-exec.sh
--------------
# Copy Binary file from CD and Execute it # # Usage: cd-exec.sh <filename> # cp /mnt/cdrom/ /tmp chmox +x /tmp/ /tmp/
#5
Actually, because of security concerns, lots of distros IME set this by default. Including, last time I checked, at least slackware, mandrake [in secure mode], debian. They're arguably for experts anyways [except maybe mandrake], but that doesn't make it any less pertinent in the context of my original post.
Most people only need to run it once, anyways, rendering writing a script somewhat moot.
It's also occurred to me that download managers and tools shouldn't set downloads +x anyways [they demonstrably don't], so it's ALWAYS at least one more step to run a downloaded binary than a downloaded shell script.
In the end, as Jeff said - it doesn't really matter anyways. So long as everyone who buys the kit manages to get it installed eventually, that's good. And if the new installer causes less support requests than the old one, then it's worth it - Just because I don't like it personally doesn't by necessity make it a bad thing.
Gary (-;
01/20/2005 (5:13 pm)
Quote:From your quote... the only people that this will affect (ie. the noexec flag) would be those people who were knowledgeable with Linux to some extent to begin with
Actually, because of security concerns, lots of distros IME set this by default. Including, last time I checked, at least slackware, mandrake [in secure mode], debian. They're arguably for experts anyways [except maybe mandrake], but that doesn't make it any less pertinent in the context of my original post.
Most people only need to run it once, anyways, rendering writing a script somewhat moot.
It's also occurred to me that download managers and tools shouldn't set downloads +x anyways [they demonstrably don't], so it's ALWAYS at least one more step to run a downloaded binary than a downloaded shell script.
In the end, as Jeff said - it doesn't really matter anyways. So long as everyone who buys the kit manages to get it installed eventually, that's good. And if the new installer causes less support requests than the old one, then it's worth it - Just because I don't like it personally doesn't by necessity make it a bad thing.
Gary (-;
#6
01/20/2005 (10:19 pm)
Since Torque is only available via download, I really don't see how this is a problem anyway. 
Torque Owner John Quigley
Developers here can use whatever installers they want, there really isn't a standard. For linux, I used a variant of loki setup for ThinkTanks, Orbz, and Marble Blast. I believe Lore also uses that installer. I did, however, get a fair amount of support requests for installer related issues with loki setup, and I had to rev the installer packages a few times to fix these issues. Part of this was my own fault for not keeping up to date with the latest setup source code, but my reason for not doing that was that I didn't wanted to destablize my installer codebase with unrestricted syncs to the head of setup cvs.
I don't do the linux installer builds for GG anymore, I think they are now using BitRock. I believe Rick O. just thought it was very easy to setup and maintain. Your concerns about it being binary only are legitimate though.
For future BraveTree linux products, I will probably just use a tarball. I haven't found a linux user yet who doesn't know what to do with a tarball. Perhaps Linspire users, but Linspire repackages the games into there own format anyway and don't use our installer.