Package Details: dfhack 0.47.05-11

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/dfhack.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: dfhack
Description: memory hacking library for Dwarf Fortress and a set of tools that use it
Upstream URL: https://dfhack.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
Keywords: dwarffortress
Licenses: custom
Conflicts: dfhack-bin, dfhack-git
Submitter: unknown
Maintainer: wookietreiber (albron, Ziusudra)
Last Packager: Ziusudra
Votes: 36
Popularity: 0.000022
First Submitted: 2011-08-07 11:03 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2022-12-05 06:04 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 8 Next › Last »

dcunningham commented on 2022-04-15 18:58 (UTC) (edited on 2022-04-15 19:46 (UTC) by dcunningham)

Getting an error that says 'Main index file missing/corrupted. The file "index" must be in the "data" folder. Make sure DF decompressed into its folders properly.'

I installed dwarffortress separately/normally from the official repos - looks like it's version 0.47.05-2. It works fine if I run it with dwarffortress, only fails when I start with dfhack.

There's an index file in both /opt/data/ and ~/.dwarffortress/data/ - do I need to do something special to make sure dfhack is looking in the right place?

AFAIK, I have the same situation on another machine, dfhack 0.47.05-4 on top of dwarfortress from the official repos and haven't had a problem there.

Nevermind, for some reason, this machine had dfhack aliased to /opt/dwarffortress/dfhack. Removed that and all is well.

wookietreiber commented on 2021-12-13 09:21 (UTC)

@brknrobot Can this be done on your end with:

CC=gcc CXX=g++ makepkg

I'm not sure what the package guidelines are on overriding compilers and/or other settings.

brknrobot commented on 2021-12-10 22:05 (UTC) (edited on 2021-12-10 22:06 (UTC) by brknrobot)

dfhack only compiles with gcc. Perhaps you could add

export CC=gcc
export CXX=g++

for those of us who have switched our default compiler to clang :)

Ziusudra commented on 2021-02-12 19:56 (UTC)

So, why hide the DFHack version in the PKGBUILD other than to hide the fact that you're pushing betas in a so called stable package? The upstream URL even has the word "stable" in it.

Sleedy, the operative word in your quote is "built". DFHack does not require a version of DF to build, only to run.

It is trivially easy for users that want to use the betas to do so. By pushing betas in a package that doesn't make it obvious that they're betas, you make it harder for those that don't want to use betas to avoid them.

sleedy commented on 2021-02-12 18:42 (UTC) (edited on 2021-02-12 18:43 (UTC) by sleedy)

@Ziusudra The link you refer to states the following:

Stable packages package stable releases: Release candidates (i.e. 1.0.0-rc1), alpha (e.g. 1.0.0-alpha1) and beta (e.g. 1.0.0-beta1) releases are not allowed and are only to be used under the following circumstances:

  • [...]

  • The non-stable release allows for the package to be built (e.g. problems introduced due to updated dependencies) and those changes can not otherwise be backported easily.

wookietreiber commented on 2021-02-12 13:15 (UTC)

Pushed the new version a few hours ago. I've been making AUR releases for the beta's in the past as well, so I'll keep on doing that.

Ziusudra commented on 2021-02-12 08:52 (UTC)

It having been done in the past does not make it ok, in my opinion.

It currently builds just fine, and runs fine with the matching DF version, it just doesn't run with the updated DF, which is what holding a package in pacman.conf is for.

The -git package conflict is there in case anyone does make that package, which anyone is welcome to do.

henkm commented on 2021-02-12 08:24 (UTC)

If you check the version history, you can see that in the past beta packages were released and even alpha packages. In my opinion,it is correct to do so because the current package can not be built due to upgraded dependencies (DF itself). But it's your call. Please also note that though a dfhack-git package is mentioned in conflicts, such a package does not actually exist.

Ziusudra commented on 2021-02-12 06:18 (UTC)

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines#Package_versioning

So that page specifies that "Stable packages package stable releases" and the current beta release does not qualify for any of the exceptions.