I'm in need of a tic file processor for Linux and was wondering if
it's possible to compile 'htick' without the rest of the husky stuff.
If that's not possible, what else would I need to build 'htick'.
I'm in need of a tic file processor for Linux and was wondering
if it's possible to compile 'htick' without the rest of the husky
stuff.
If that's not possible, what else would I need to build 'htick'.
You have to build Husky libraries before building htick. So first you
have to grab the sources.
mkdir ~/husky
cd husky
git clone https://github.com/huskyproject/huskylib.git
git clone https://github.com/huskyproject/smapi.git
git clone https://github.com/huskyproject/fidoconf.git
git clone https://github.com/huskyproject/areafix.git
git clone https://github.com/huskyproject/htick.git
Now you take the makefile configuration common for the subprojects:
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/huskyproject/huskybse/master/hu skymak.cfg and update it according to your needs. It should be in the
same 'husky' directory. After that you may build and install htick.
cd huskylib
make && sudo make install
cd ../smapi
make && sudo make install
cd ../fidoconf
make && sudo make install
cd ../areafix
make && sudo make install
cd ../htick
make && sudo make install
You have htick now. If you used static linking (DYNLIBS=0 in huskymak.cfg), you may delete the static libraries libhusky.a,
libsmapi.a, libfidoconfig.a, libareafix.a from LIBDIR you configured
in huskymak.cfg. It is not necessary to store them after you have
built htick.
You have to build Husky libraries before building htick. So first you
have to grab the sources.
mkdir ~/husky
cd husky
git clone https://github.com/huskyproject/huskylib.git
git clone https://github.com/huskyproject/smapi.git
git clone https://github.com/huskyproject/fidoconf.git
git clone https://github.com/huskyproject/areafix.git
git clone https://github.com/huskyproject/htick.git
Now you take the makefile configuration common for the subprojects:
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/huskyproject/huskybse/master/hu
skymak.cfg and update it according to your needs. It should be in the
same 'husky' directory. After that you may build and install htick.
cd huskylib
make && sudo make install
cd ../smapi
make && sudo make install
cd ../fidoconf
make && sudo make install
cd ../areafix
make && sudo make install
cd ../htick
make && sudo make install
You have htick now. If you used static linking (DYNLIBS=0 in
huskymak.cfg), you may delete the static libraries libhusky.a,
libsmapi.a, libfidoconfig.a, libareafix.a from LIBDIR you configured
in huskymak.cfg. It is not necessary to store them after you have
built htick.
Everything worked just fine apart from 'config' wasn't installed in the location that I'd defined in 'huskymak.cfg'. In fact, I don't think it got installed at all, so I just manually copied it to my desired location.
Thank you very much indeed for the clear and concise step by step instructions, very much appreciated.
Thank you very much indeed for the clear and concise step by step
instructions, very much appreciated.
Indeed!
It should be in the faq, or documented somewhere.
Everything worked just fine apart from 'config' wasn't installed in
the location that I'd defined in 'huskymak.cfg'.
Thank you very much indeed for the clear and concise step by step instructions, very much appreciated.
Thank you very much indeed for the clear and concise step by step
instructions, very much appreciated.
Indeed!
It should be in the faq, or documented somewhere. I also always
struggle to get the modules compiled in the right order, and with the right options, when I move my fido setup to a new system every couple
of years...
It should be in the faq, or documented somewhere.
Well, in a far far away past, there was something like RTFM. Let me point to the trees in the forest today.
[...]
The concept is well described from my point of view.
It should be in the faq, or documented somewhere. I also always
struggle to get the modules compiled in the right order, and with the
right options, when I move my fido setup to a new system every couple
of years...
I began updating makefiles and the documentation on installing software and
understood that the makefiles are so bad that it is better to rewrite them from scratch. The work turned out to be quite large, so please wait until I
finish the makefiles and documentation.
It should be in the faq, or documented somewhere.
Well, in a far far away past, there was something like RTFM.
The concept is well described from my point of view.
Well I managed to compile htick in december last year. But I needed
some help with conflicting and not all that clear information in the documentation of the different modules. (You even commented in the
thread)
So I wouldn't call it "well described".
Ideally you should only have to type 'make' once in the htick
directory, which would automatically make the different husky
libraries in the right order and with the right options, that htick depends on, if they are not yet build and installed...
The concept is well described from my point of view.
Well I managed to compile htick in december last year. But I needed
some help with conflicting and not all that clear information in the
documentation of the different modules. (You even commented in the
thread)
So I wouldn't call it "well described".
True. I didn't understand that you are now much deeper into details of different modules.
My point of view was on the basic sequence of the building process.
Ideally you should only have to type 'make' once in the htick
directory, which would automatically make the different husky
libraries in the right order and with the right options, that htick
depends on, if they are not yet build and installed...
Ideally i wouldn't have to use 'make' at all. 'apt/rpm/pkg/yours install htick' should do the trick. ;)
Maybe i'm too much used to husky but i don't see htick as a standalone programm.
It's a part of a toolset and the base tool is huskybase. Once the huskymak.cfg of the huskybse is set up any other module should compile
on the fly.
Ideally i wouldn't have to use 'make' at all. 'apt/rpm/pkg/yours
install htick' should do the trick. ;)
Wouldn't that be nice! ;)
But you would have to convince a lot of distribution maintainers to support husky, just for maybe a few hundred (at best) users... Ain't gona happen.
The build process is just the test for the newcomer. If they fail at the first stage, the husky config is to complicated for them anyway ;P.
The concept is well described from my point of view.
So I wouldn't call it "well described".
True. I didn't understand that you are now much deeper into
details of different modules.
I am?
My point of view was on the basic sequence of the building
process.
And that process isn't very well documented in my opinion.
Ideally you should only have to type 'make' once in the htick
Ideally i wouldn't have to use 'make' at all. 'apt/rpm/pkg/yours
install htick' should do the trick. ;)
Wouldn't that be nice! ;)
But you would have to convince a lot of distribution maintainers to support husky,
just for maybe a few hundred (at best) users...
Maybe i'm too much used to husky but i don't see htick as a
standalone programm.
It is for me.
It's a part of a toolset and the base tool is huskybase. Once the
huskymak.cfg of the huskybse is set up any other module should
compile on the fly.
Is that documented? ;-)
The build process is just the test for the newcomer. If they fail at
the first stage, the husky config is to complicated for them anyway
;P.
The concept is well described from my point of view.
So I wouldn't call it "well described".
True. I didn't understand that you are now much deeper into
details of different modules.
I am?
Yes, you are. :) For me the list of commands (that you liked) in this echo did match to the sequence explanation of the huskybse INSTALL file.
My point of view was on the basic sequence of the building
process.
And that process isn't very well documented in my opinion.
Please compare the list of commands in this thread to the examples of the INSTALL file. I can't see much difference. The sudo command is missing there.
To tell my real opinion, no, it would not be nice if fidonet node
software would be a one-click installation. This would result in high administration workload in the *C structure and some weeks later into
dead node listings or nodelist clearings. Fast install and fast
forgotten.
But you would have to convince a lot of distribution maintainers to
support husky,
Sorry, again no. You could set up and maintain your own repository. The user have to add the repo url into the apt settings.
Maybe i'm too much used to husky but i don't see htick as a
standalone programm.
It is for me.
What about the dual configuration in your non-husky installation and the fidoconfig required for htick? How do you keep them in sync?
I am?
Yes, you are. :) For me the list of commands (that you liked) in
this echo did match to the sequence explanation of the huskybse
INSTALL file.
First you have to know you have to start with huskybse. That isn't
even mentioned in the htick/INSTALL file.
Please compare the list of commands in this thread to the
examples of the INSTALL file. I can't see much difference. The
sudo command is missing there.
See above.
Fast install and fast forgotten.
This is already a problem! :-(
What about the dual configuration in your non-husky installation
and the fidoconfig required for htick? How do you keep them in
sync?
It hasn't been a problem sofar... The binkd config is also separate, makenl is separate.
Fast install and fast forgotten.
This is already a problem! :-(
We don't see many new installs in R24.
What about the dual configuration in your non-husky installation
and the fidoconfig required for htick? How do you keep them in
sync?
It hasn't been a problem sofar... The binkd config is also separate,
makenl is separate.
I know but my question was "how"? Do you add a new link in the non-husky tosser/areafix and do the same for the fidoconfig htick again?
Do you add a new link in the non-husky tosser/areafix and do the
same for the fidoconfig htick again?
Yes, there is no other way. But you only do this maybe a couple of
times a year at most, so it doesn't bother me...
Can Htick create like a files.bbs when processing .tics? I see it
will use one when hatching, I am interested tho on incomming if
possible?
telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-
* Forwarded from area 'FIDOSOFT.HUSKY'
Hello Rick,
31 Dec 23 10:21, you wrote to All:
Can Htick create like a files.bbs when processing .tics? I see
it will use one when hatching, I am interested tho on incomming
if possible?
yes, mine creates it automatically.
Can Htick create like a files.bbs when processing .tics? I see
it will use one when hatching, I am interested tho on incomming
if possible?
yes, mine creates it automatically.
is it something you have in cfg or what you use in cli?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 368 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 86:30:28 |
| Calls: | 7,895 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,968 |
| Messages: | 5,792,010 |