CVS Directory???

Biggen · Post #1by **Biggen** » 27.02.2007, 19:23

Want to download the newest snapshot of Celestia but I can't find where the damn CVS location is. I have searched and searched but still can't find it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Also, any particular reason why CVS is being used instead of SVN? SVN is sooooo much easier to use...

julesstoop · Post #2by **julesstoop** » 27.02.2007, 19:31

Instruction from dirkpitt for OS X users, should be a comparable procedure on other platforms:

In the mean time, try these abbreviated instructions:
(0. If not already done so, install Xcode tools from the OS X CD/DVD)
1. Open Terminal
2. type, or paste in: cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/celestia login
3. As the Password: prompt, hit return
4. Type: cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/celestia co celestia
(the "co" indeed means "check out")
5. Wait for a while, until the download is complete
6. Navigate to the new "celestia" folder inside your home folder, look for the celestia.xcode file inside the "macosx" folder and double click it
7. Choose Build > Build and Debug, or Build and Run

Biggen · Post #3by **Biggen** » 27.02.2007, 19:53

Hmmm... Doesn't seem to work on my system like that (Linux). I hit enter after after the login prompt and then nothing happens... I cut and paste the "co" line and nothing happens....

Post #4by **t00fri** » 27.02.2007, 19:54

Biggen wrote:...
Also, any particular reason why CVS is being used instead of SVN? SVN is sooooo much easier to use...

None of the Celestia developers has the slightest problems with using CVS. For us 'ease of use' has no particular relevance...

I wonder how you can tell the difference between using CVS and SVN, if you don't manage to find the CVS directory? ;-)

Have a look here:
http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=21302

If this doesn't work for you then your system is not properly set up. I use CVS under Windows (via CYGWIN) and under Linux. You can use Cervisia under Linux if you like. But again you must understand how to configure it.

Bye Fridger

Biggen · Post #5by **Biggen** » 27.02.2007, 20:04

Figured it out via the sourceforge.net page. Didn't think to look there!!.

I'm guessing something special must be done with a CVS version as there is no "configure" file in the root CVS directory...

I only commented on SVN over CVS because I CVS is on its way out with many programs as SVN is taking over. Too many darn command line switches with CVS.... SVN just seems easier to use on all ends. But I guess it is what you are used to...

Post #6by **t00fri** » 27.02.2007, 20:15

Biggen wrote:Figured it out via the sourceforge.net page. Didn't think to look there!!.

But on this globe practically ALL OpenSource software is developed on SourceForge...

I'm guessing something special must be done with a CVS version as there is no "configure" file in the root CVS directory...

Certainly: type at the terminal prompt

> make -f Makefile.cvs

That will among other things start the autotools and generate what you were missing.

I only commented on SVN over CVS because I CVS is on its way out with many programs as SVN is taking over. Too many darn command line switches with CVS.... SVN just seems easier to use on all ends. But I guess it is what you are used to...

For typical use there are not really many relevant switches. Actually, for devs it's way simpler to communicate with CVS via ssh (without logging in explicitly)

Bye Fridger

Post #7by **selden** » 27.02.2007, 21:00

Fridger,

It sounds almost as if you're unfamiliar with Subversion, although I'm sure that's not true

It has several useful features that cvs does not have, like storing binary files as differences instead of each binary file update being treated as a single indigestible blob, and being able to specify as atomic, updates that actually modify several different files. But I think Celestia is a small enough project that these improvements might not be enough to justify the conversion effort required. I do seem to recall there being a discussion about this not too long ago, which also came to this conclusion.

Biggen · Post #8by **Biggen** » 27.02.2007, 21:51

t00fri wrote:

But on this globe practically ALL OpenSource software is developed on SourceForge...

Yes of course. Just didn't think to look at the actually celestia sourcefordge.net webpage for instructions on how to get to the CVS repositiory. Figured it would be on the ACTUAL celestia website somewhere...

At any rate, this is the error I get when running "make -f Makefile.cvs".

*** Creating acinclude.m4
*** Creating aclocal.m4
aclocal:configure.in:73: warning: macro `AM_PO_SUBDIRS' not found in library
aclocal:configure.in:74: warning: macro `AM_GNU_GETTEXT' not found in library
aclocal:configure.in:283: warning: macro `AM_GCONF_SOURCE_2' not found in librar y
*** Creating configure
configure.in:73: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_PO_SUBDIRS
If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
See the Autoconf documentation.
configure.in:74: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_GNU_GETTEXT
configure.in:283: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_GCONF_SOURCE_2
make[1]: *** [cvs] Error 1
make: *** [all] Error 2

Any ideas....

Post #9by **t00fri** » 27.02.2007, 22:13

selden wrote:Fridger,

It sounds almost as if you're unfamiliar with Subversion, although I'm sure that's not true

It has several useful features that cvs does not have, like storing binary files as differences instead of each binary file update being treated as a single indigestible blob, and being able to specify as atomic, updates that actually modify several different files. But I think Celestia is a small enough project that these improvements might not be enough to justify the conversion effort required. I do seem to recall there being a discussion about this not too long ago, which also came to this conclusion.

Indeed I am familiar with SVN. But the previous issue was 'ease of use' , which has never counted for me in any way. I am used to "complexity" ...It's part of my profession. I really cannot understand when people complain that they have to memorize a few command line parameters. That's just peanuts compared to what I have to memorize every day ;-)

. I guess it's training like some people can do things in sport of which I can only dream...

For me CVS does what it is supposed to do, since > 20 years! I have no particular urge to switch to SVN. But if we should decide one day to switch to SVN, I have no problems with this either. I also don't think it's worth doing for Celestia.

I would much prefer instead if the progress in development was more steady... ;-)

Bye Fridger

Biggen · Post #10by **Biggen** » 27.02.2007, 22:13

Figured it out. Needed a few Devel packages....

Thanks for the help guys! Nothing like a little SVN vs. CVS to end the day!!

:-)

Post #11by **t00fri** » 27.02.2007, 22:20

Biggen wrote:
...

*** Creating acinclude.m4
*** Creating aclocal.m4
aclocal:configure.in:73: warning: macro `AM_PO_SUBDIRS' not found in library
aclocal:configure.in:74: warning: macro `AM_GNU_GETTEXT' not found in library
aclocal:configure.in:283: warning: macro `AM_GCONF_SOURCE_2' not found in librar y
*** Creating configure
configure.in:73: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_PO_SUBDIRS
If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
See the Autoconf documentation.
configure.in:74: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_GNU_GETTEXT
configure.in:283: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_GCONF_SOURCE_2
make[1]: *** [cvs] Error 1
make: *** [all] Error 2

Any ideas....

Yes, gettext lacking etc.... There will presumably be more errors popping up while you proceed, since you probably did not install all libs and devel packages required.

Sorry, I don't have the time to go with you through all these steps in detail. Did you try to compile the released sources of celestia 1.4.1 first? This should give you an idea what is still missing in your installation.

Bye Fridger

Post #12by **Christophe** » 27.02.2007, 22:20

t00fri wrote:
I only commented on SVN over CVS because I CVS is on its way out with many programs as SVN is taking over. Too many darn command line switches with CVS.... SVN just seems easier to use on all ends. But I guess it is what you are used to...

For typical use there are not really many relevant switches. Actually, for devs it's way simpler to communicate with CVS via ssh (without logging in explicitly)

Well, SVN is kind of 'backward' compatible with CVS, so you can't really say that one is simpler than the other. If you can 'cvs diff', you can certainly 'svn diff' too and the other way arround!

SVN also provides a 'native' ssh access method, whereas, although perfectly usable, it's kind of a hack on CVS. And it's true that most of CVS annoyances have been dealt with in SVN (moving files, atomic changesets, easy branching and tagging, etc...)

SVN is just a better CVS, I can't think of any area where CVS is superior to SVN. But if things haven't changed, SourceForge still recommands CVS over SVN for performance reasons and we all know how well SF's CVS performs...

Biggen · Post #13by **Biggen** » 27.02.2007, 22:23

I really cannot understand when people complain that they have to memorize a few command line parameters.

And it is this kind of thinking as to why linux will NEVER be mainstream in anything other than server environments. It has gotten easier than it was 10+ years ago, but you or I will never see the day that a linux distro loaded computer will be available for purchase at Circuit City or BestBuy. But then again, maybe that is what the "powers that be" in the Linux community want...

See, to me, I cannot understand when people (i.e. developers) complain about the end user who complains that they have to memorize a few command line parameters. I mean, if it is open source and one is putting it on the net for users to use and test, wouldn't it make more sense to make it (hint, hint) user friendly!!

But that would be too much like right... :roll:

Ah... What the hell do I know anyway? I own a retail store for a living....

I mean no disprespect in the above post. Just my general opionion... It changes from day to day.

BTW, Celestia looks beautiful. Got it working after I snagged all the packages. Good job guys!!!

Post #14by **t00fri** » 27.02.2007, 22:26

Christophe wrote:
t00fri wrote:
I only commented on SVN over CVS because I CVS is on its way out with many programs as SVN is taking over. Too many darn command line switches with CVS.... SVN just seems easier to use on all ends. But I guess it is what you are used to...

For typical use there are not really many relevant switches. Actually, for devs it's way simpler to communicate with CVS via ssh (without logging in explicitly)

Well, SVN is kind of 'backward' compatible with CVS, so you can't really say that one is simpler than the other. If you can 'cvs diff', you can certainly 'svn diff' too and the other way arround!

SVN also provides a 'native' ssh access method, whereas, although perfectly usable, it's kind of a hack on CVS. And it's true that most of CVS annoyances have been dealt with in SVN (moving files, atomic changesets, easy branching and tagging, etc...)

SVN is just a better CVS, I can't think of any area where CVS is superior to SVN. But if things haven't changed, SourceForge still recommands CVS over SVN for performance reasons and we all know how well SF's CVS performs...

Christophe,

I think you misunderstood. I meant that communicating with CVS via ssh is simpler than doing an anonymous login first etc. I was NOT comparing CVS with SVN, above!

Cheers,
Fridger

Post #15by **t00fri** » 27.02.2007, 22:40

Biggen wrote:
I really cannot understand when people complain that they have to memorize a few command line parameters.

See, to me, I cannot understand when people (i.e. developers) complain about the end user who complains that they have to memorize a few command line parameters. I mean, if it is open source and one is putting it on the net for users to use and test, wouldn't it make more sense to make it (hint, hint) user friendly!!

Noone is complaining about /endusers/.

People who complain about having to memorize command line parameters should perhaps use Windows or not attempt to compile code from CVS. CVS was not made for /endusers/ in the first place. It's the official software releases that are intended for endusers. Click and install. Most user friendly in both Linux and Windows. Nothing to memorize.

Bye Fridger

Post #16by **Christophe** » 27.02.2007, 23:02

Biggen wrote:See, to me, I cannot understand when people (i.e. developers) complain about the end user who complains that they have to memorize a few command line parameters. I mean, if it is open source and one is putting it on the net for users to use and test, wouldn't it make more sense to make it (hint, hint) user friendly!!

If I may risk a comparison, I would say that complaining about CVS's too many switches is like complaining about a caterpillar's too many levers. Of course CVS is not user friendly, it is not meant to be used by end users! And comparing it with other version control systems, it's certainly not the most difficult to use, even compared to commercial offerings.

Now, the problem with Linux is that you often have to deal with tools like CVS when all you have to do on Windows is download a pre-build binary of the pre-release. In fact you're really not meant to install software not provided by your distribution.

Packaging is the real issue, and it will probably take years to fix -- get to a standard platform (LSB) and maybe standard packaging system. On the other hand this also makes it difficult for virus/spyware writers to infect your system, you have to look at the bright side of things ;-)

Post #17by **t00fri** » 27.02.2007, 23:09

At least we seem to agree, Christophe ;-)

.

See my previous post.

Bye Fridger

Biggen · Post #18by **Biggen** » 27.02.2007, 23:59

You guys make a good point about CVS not being designed for the enduser. Although in my particular case, I couldn't compile the "stable" code on linux because there was some error messages resulting in doing a "make" on it. After doing some reading on the forums I learned that the newest snapshot took care of this problem so I was in need of that.

Although, these steps are typcially beyond the average end user. ...

Anybody know anything about this error message after doing a "make". Got a buddy that is having this problem. He dl'ed the CVS version just like I did with all the dependencies needed. The "make -f Makefile.cvs" went fine. The "./configure --with-kde --with-lua=/usr/local/bin" went fine. Only thing is that the configure complained at the end that lua 5.1 was installed and it wanted 5.0 instead. Not sure if that has anything to do with the following problem or not.

make[4]: Entering directory `/temp/celestia/po'
File gl.po does not exist. If you are a translator, you can create it through 'm sginit'.
make[4]: *** [gl.po-create] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory `/temp/celestia/po'
make[3]: *** [gl.po] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/temp/celestia/po'
make[2]: *** [stamp-po] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/temp/celestia/po'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/temp/celestia'
make: *** [all] Error 2

{

Post #19by **Christophe** » 28.02.2007, 09:57

That looks like a bug.

Apparently I forgot to remove an entry from po/LINGUAS, juste remove the "gl" line and that should fix it. You'll probably need to rerun 'make -f Makefile.cvs'.

Biggen · Post #20by **Biggen** » 28.02.2007, 16:14

Yup, that did it. Just took out gl and everythings works perfectly.

Thanks!!

Celestia Forums

CVS Directory???

CVS Directory???

Re: CVS Directory???