Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarification of "AppDirAssistant is no longer the recommended way to generate AppImages" #178

Closed
develar opened this issue Jun 29, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

@develar
Copy link
Contributor

develar commented Jun 29, 2016

Hi, I am going to support AppImage target in the electron-builder and have couple of questions.

In the build.sh I see

AppDirAssistant is no longer the recommended way to generate AppImages.

  1. What I should use instead? Where are binaries?

  2. Where can I grab AppRun? I see https://github.com/resin-io/etcher/tree/master/scripts/build/AppImages but where is official download? I don't see in the https://github.com/probonopd/AppImageKit/releases or bintray.

    In the wiki no info about it, only that it should be.

    (I understand that maybe I should build AppImageKit to get it, but you know, it is very inconvenient and insecure (e.g. possible question from user why electron-builder doesn't use official builds?)).

  3. Is it possible to build AppImage (convert dir to AppImage) on MacOS? I assume format is simple and should be easy to port.

@develar
Copy link
Contributor Author

develar commented Jun 29, 2016

  1. Got it. AppDirAssistant is deprecated, but AppImageAssistant not.

@develar
Copy link
Contributor Author

develar commented Jun 29, 2016

2 . Found :) But why etcher use x64/x86 variants instead of just x86? @jviotti could you please comment? It is just "because better" or are there strong reasons? It seems #139 is the answer why.

@probonopd
Copy link
Member

probonopd commented Jun 29, 2016

Where can I grab AppRun?

Currently https://github.com/probonopd/AppImageKit/releases/download/5/AppRun

@jviotti
Copy link

jviotti commented Jun 29, 2016

Hi @develar ,

2 . Found :) But why etcher use x64/x86 variants instead of just x86? @jviotti could you please comment? It is just "because better" or are there strong reasons? It seems #139 is the answer why.

Do you mean why we use x86_64 instead of just x64? If so, its only a naming convention that we kept adhering to for historical reasons. Happy to rename to x64 if that clarifies things for our users.

@probonopd
Copy link
Member

Please use the architecture names used by arch(1).

@develar
Copy link
Contributor Author

develar commented Jun 29, 2016

@jviotti Thanks for answer, I mean why do you have to use special build (x64) instead of released official build, but after that I found issue #139 If I understand correctly, you need to build AppImage for both arch but AppImageAssistant doesn't support it.

@jviotti
Copy link

jviotti commented Jun 29, 2016

@develar Right, I've pre-compiled both AppRun and AppImageAssistant, and I run the build scripts on VMs on each release. #130 seems to be the answer.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants