Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

All released Zandronum builds

Moderator: Developers

User avatar
Sean
Forum Regular
Offline
Posts: 577
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:09 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#21 by Sean » Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:42 pm

Now there's a server build for x86_64 FreeBSD, and one with debug info as well.

You'll need to install dependencies before running the server:

Code: Select all

$ pkg install sdl sqlite3 openssl


BONUS: a 2.1.2 build for FreeBSD

User avatar
Avi
 
Offline
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:11 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#22 by Avi » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:51 am

Out of curiosity, when will the Ubuntu builds be available? (or is there a code repository out there I should know about?)

User avatar
Sean
Forum Regular
Offline
Posts: 577
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:09 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#23 by Sean » Mon Sep 05, 2016 7:21 am

Avi wrote:Out of curiosity, when will the Ubuntu builds be available? (or is there a code repository out there I should know about?)

Try my unofficial Linux builds or build it yourself and checkout commit 4f775b509b10.

User avatar
Zanieon
Forum Regular
Offline
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:17 am
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#24 by Zanieon » Mon Sep 05, 2016 7:32 am

One thing i noticed is that this builds Zandronum 3.0 still don't changed the method of how brightmaps is applied and i am pretty sure that Graf Zahl changed that before GZDoom 1.8.6, in the next days i will make a ticket in the tracker with an example of what i am talking about

User avatar
Yrvyne
 
Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#25 by Yrvyne » Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:32 pm

Sean wrote:Here's a build for x86_64 Linux, and here's one with debugging information.


Hello, I want to test Zandronum 3 Alpha, however, I have a couple of inquiries.

1.) I installed Zandronum 2.1.2 through the drdteam multiverse repository. Will the quoted downloads conflict with my install?

2.) If yes, what procedure can I execute to test the new alpha without replacing/touching 2.1.2?

My backstory:
I migrated from Windows to Ubuntu Gnome and was able to successfully build DoomRetro (my own tutorial), however, I still appreciated the Brutal Doom and Project Brutality mods. On Windows I used GZDoom but only produced a black screen. Since I did not receive any support (I am still waiting), I simply switched to Zandronum, which worked perfectly fine upon installing (except for the need to change the Console key because the default key did not bring up the console). On trying Project Brutality, I had unsatisfactory results and upon reading a particular thread on this forum, I discover that I need the 3.x.x version for PB to run. So here I am.

User avatar
Sean
Forum Regular
Offline
Posts: 577
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:09 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#26 by Sean » Wed Sep 07, 2016 2:39 pm

Yrvyne wrote:1.) I installed Zandronum 2.1.2 through the drdteam multiverse repository. Will the quoted downloads conflict with my install?

No

Yrvyne wrote:2.) If yes, what procedure can I execute to test the new alpha without replacing/touching 2.1.2?


Code: Select all

wget https://csnxs.uk/archive/id/doom/sourceports/zandronum/builds/linux/betas/zandronum-linux-x86_64-3.0-alpha-160814-2010.tar.gz
tar xf zandronum-linux-x86_64-3.0-alpha-160814-2010.tar.gz
chmod +x zandronum
./zandronum

User avatar
Yrvyne
 
Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#27 by Yrvyne » Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:31 pm

wget https://csnxs.uk/archive/id/doom/source ... 010.tar.gz
tar xf zandronum-linux-x86_64-3.0-alpha-160814-2010.tar.gz
chmod +x zandronum
./zandronum


Did not work.

Received this error: error while loading shared libraries: libfmodex64-4.24.16.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Anything else I can do?

Below is the terminal output.

Code: Select all

blc@blc:~$ wget https://csnxs.uk/archive/id/doom/sourceports/zandronum/builds/linux/betas/zandronum-linux-x86_64-3.0-alpha-160814-2010.tar.gz
--2016-09-07 19:25:48--  https://csnxs.uk/archive/id/doom/sourceports/zandronum/builds/linux/betas/zandronum-linux-x86_64-3.0-alpha-160814-2010.tar.gz
Resolving csnxs.uk (csnxs.uk)... 85.159.210.120, 2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:fe55:1310
Connecting to csnxs.uk (csnxs.uk)|85.159.210.120|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 9377565 (8.9M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: ‘zandronum-linux-x86_64-3.0-alpha-160814-2010.tar.gz’

zandronum-linux-x86_64-3.0-alpha-1608 100%[========================================================================>]   8.94M  1.38MB/s    in 7.0s   

2016-09-07 19:25:56 (1.28 MB/s) - ‘zandronum-linux-x86_64-3.0-alpha-160814-2010.tar.gz’ saved [9377565/9377565]

blc@blc:~$ tar xf zandronum-linux-x86_64-3.0-alpha-160814-2010.tar.gz
blc@blc:~$ chmod +x zandronum
blc@blc:~$ ./zandronum
./zandronum: error while loading shared libraries: libfmodex64-4.24.16.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
blc@blc:~$

User avatar
Yrvyne
 
Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#28 by Yrvyne » Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:16 pm

I followed the directions here* and now a new error has popped up. The difference is that whereas libfmodex64-4.24.16.so was included in the downloadable build, libcrypto.so.1.0.2 is not. How shall I go about solving this issue? Thanks.

Code: Select all

root@blc:~/zandronum-linux-x86_64-3.0-alpha-160814-2010# ./zandronum
./zandronum: error while loading shared libraries: libcrypto.so.1.0.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

*copy libfmodex64-4.24.16.so from the build directory to /usr/lib/

Further research (here and here) points to the following package: libssl1.0.2 which in terminal gives me the following output:
Spoiler (Open)
blc@blc:~$ sudo apt install libssl*
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-4e458' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-dev-4e458' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libsslcommon2-dev' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libsslcommon2' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl1.0.2-dbg' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl1.0.0-dbg' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-dev' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-d7j01:i386' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-dev' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl0.9.8-dbg' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-doc' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl0.9.8' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-dev-d7j01:i386' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl1.0.2-dbgsym' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl1.0.0' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl1.0.2' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-dev' instead of 'libssl-ocaml-dev-4e458'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml' instead of 'libssl-ocaml-4e458'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-dev:i386' instead of 'libssl-ocaml-dev-d7j01:i386'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml:i386' instead of 'libssl-ocaml-d7j01:i386'
libssl-dev is already the newest version (1.0.2g-1ubuntu8).
libssl-doc is already the newest version (1.0.2g-1ubuntu8).
libssl-doc set to manually installed.
libssl1.0.0 is already the newest version (1.0.2g-1ubuntu8).
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libssl-ocaml : Depends: ocaml-base-nox-4.02.3
Conflicts: libssl-ocaml:i386 but 0.5.2-1 is to be installed
libssl-ocaml:i386 : Conflicts: libssl-ocaml but 0.5.2-1 is to be installed
libssl-ocaml-dev : Depends: ocaml-nox-4.02.3
Recommends: ocaml-findlib but it is not going to be installed
Conflicts: libssl-ocaml-dev:i386 but 0.5.2-1 is to be installed
libssl-ocaml-dev:i386 : Depends: ocaml-nox-4.02.3:i386
Conflicts: libssl-ocaml-dev but 0.5.2-1 is to be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.


So, please, correct me if I'm wrong but do I require all those packages to run the Linux builds?
Thanks.

User avatar
skyrimguy
 
Offline
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:35 am

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#29 by skyrimguy » Sun Sep 11, 2016 5:38 pm

Yrvyne wrote:Further research (here and here) points to the following package: libssl1.0.2 which in terminal gives me the following output:
Spoiler (Open)
blc@blc:~$ sudo apt install libssl*
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-4e458' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-dev-4e458' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libsslcommon2-dev' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libsslcommon2' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl1.0.2-dbg' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl1.0.0-dbg' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-dev' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-d7j01:i386' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-dev' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl0.9.8-dbg' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-doc' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl0.9.8' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-dev-d7j01:i386' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl1.0.2-dbgsym' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl1.0.0' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl1.0.2' for glob 'libssl*'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-dev' instead of 'libssl-ocaml-dev-4e458'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml' instead of 'libssl-ocaml-4e458'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml-dev:i386' instead of 'libssl-ocaml-dev-d7j01:i386'
Note, selecting 'libssl-ocaml:i386' instead of 'libssl-ocaml-d7j01:i386'
libssl-dev is already the newest version (1.0.2g-1ubuntu8).
libssl-doc is already the newest version (1.0.2g-1ubuntu8).
libssl-doc set to manually installed.
libssl1.0.0 is already the newest version (1.0.2g-1ubuntu8).
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libssl-ocaml : Depends: ocaml-base-nox-4.02.3
Conflicts: libssl-ocaml:i386 but 0.5.2-1 is to be installed
libssl-ocaml:i386 : Conflicts: libssl-ocaml but 0.5.2-1 is to be installed
libssl-ocaml-dev : Depends: ocaml-nox-4.02.3
Recommends: ocaml-findlib but it is not going to be installed
Conflicts: libssl-ocaml-dev:i386 but 0.5.2-1 is to be installed
libssl-ocaml-dev:i386 : Depends: ocaml-nox-4.02.3:i386
Conflicts: libssl-ocaml-dev but 0.5.2-1 is to be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.


So, please, correct me if I'm wrong but do I require all those packages to run the Linux builds?
Thanks.

You need to only install libssl1.0.2:

Code: Select all

sudo apt-get install libssl1.0.2


By using an asterisk (*) after the libssl name, like you did:

Code: Select all

sudo apt install libssl*

you are telling apt to match and install any package whose name begins with libssl. An asterisk (*) matches any string, of any length.

User avatar
Yrvyne
 
Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#30 by Yrvyne » Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:36 pm

skyrimguy wrote:you are telling apt to match and install any package whose name begins with libssl. An asterisk (*) matches any string, of any length.


Yes, you are, in fact, correct. I absent-mindedly neglected to mention that I was forced to type the asterisk because of this output:

Code: Select all

blc@blc:~$ sudo apt-get install libssl1.0.2
[sudo] password for blc:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
Package libssl1.0.2 is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source

E: Package 'libssl1.0.2' has no installation candidate


I admit that I cannot wrap my head around OpenSSL's install instructions. I also tried Synaptic but version 1.0.2 is not present either. No LaunchPad support, too.

Anything else, I can do?
Is there a way to force the terminal through apt, apt-get, aptitude to divulge the 'another package' that is being referred to above?
Thank again.
Last edited by Yrvyne on Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Topic author
Developer
Offline
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#31 by Torr Samaho » Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:42 pm

Yrvyne wrote:Anything else, I can do?

It may be easier to compile Zandronum yourself. This way it will just use the lib versions you have, so that you don't have to try to install lib versions compatible with the precompiled binary. https://wiki.zandronum.com/Compiling_Zandronum_on_Linux

User avatar
Yrvyne
 
Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#32 by Yrvyne » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:09 am

Torr Samaho wrote:It may be easier to compile Zandronum yourself.


Did that using the following script. This is simply a copy'n'paste of the required parts as per the provided link.

The following is the resultant log.

The process was unsuccessful. Many warnings are present, amongst them the following:
    * variables set but not used
    * ignored return values
    * left shift of negative values

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Topic author
Developer
Offline
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#33 by Torr Samaho » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:16 pm

Yrvyne wrote:The following is the resultant log.

Your compiler is too new ;). I backported the ZDoom fix for the only compiler error shown in your log. Please update your clone and try again.

User avatar
Yrvyne
 
Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#34 by Yrvyne » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:06 pm

Too new for my own good I see! Well, I ran the script again and had still a whole log of similar stuff as before. Shall I post it?
Any hint on where I am going wrong? Thank once again.

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Topic author
Developer
Offline
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#35 by Torr Samaho » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:17 pm

Yrvyne wrote:Too new for my own good I see! Well, I ran the script again and had still a whole log of similar stuff as before. Shall I post it?

Yes, please.

Yrvyne wrote:Any hint on where I am going wrong?

GCC 6.2.0, the compiler you are using, was released less than a month ago. Nobody adapted Zandronum's source to it yet. This is a good opportunity to adapt the source though, so you don't need to switch to a different compiler. We'll just have to go through the errors and fix them.

User avatar
Yrvyne
 
Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#36 by Yrvyne » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:47 pm

This is the log. I did not change anything from my script.

Great that I can be of help. I'll be happy to oblige with any commands/compilations/scripts to run for testing.

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Topic author
Developer
Offline
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#37 by Torr Samaho » Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:12 pm

Yrvyne wrote:This is the log. I did not change anything from my script.

Looks like you did not update your clone. If you don't want to change your script, just delete all generated folders, so that the script generates a fresh clone that includes the change I made to fix your issue in p_mobj.cpp.

User avatar
Yrvyne
 
Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#38 by Yrvyne » Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:23 pm

Silly me! I didn't realize I had to follow the update section of the wiki.
I uploaded an update script, as well.
The resultant log is here.

Image

:igor: Thank you very much! :igor:

One thing: the build numbers are different - this thread title says 160814-2010 but the img title is 150308-2221.

Also, I did not imagine that compiling from source, would erase version 2.1.2. I should have probably used different directories, oh, well, I'll stick with this alpha and test it with Project Brutality since this was my intention in the first place.

User avatar
Torr Samaho
Topic author
Developer
Offline
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#39 by Torr Samaho » Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:11 am

Yrvyne wrote:One thing: the build numbers are different - this thread title says 160814-2010 but the img title is 150308-2221.

To fix your GCC 6.2.0 compile problem I transplanted a ZDoom fix from 2015-03-08, that's why your build number differs. Even though the date string suggests otherwise, your version is actually newer than 160814-2010.

Yrvyne wrote:Also, I did not imagine that compiling from source, would erase version 2.1.2. I should have probably used different directories, oh, well, I'll stick with this alpha and test it with Project Brutality since this was my intention in the first place.

Compiling from source does not delete previously installed versions. Your script also installs the compiled binaries, overwriting what is already installed.

User avatar
Yrvyne
 
Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160814-2010

Post#40 by Yrvyne » Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:50 am

Torr Samaho wrote:Your script also installs the compiled binaries, overwriting what is already installed.


My reasoning for the Installation script was that compiling might not have been enough because I was observing the log having such output as [100%] Generating ../zandronum.pk3 and the wiki explanation saying Copy zandronum, zandronum.pk3, skulltag_actors.pk3, liboutput_sdl.so, zandronum-server and libfmodex64-4.24.16.so or libfmodex-4.24.16.so to /usr/games/zandronum.

So I figured I had to include the install part since a new .pk3 was being compiled and was then necessary to be placed in the actual zandronum folder.

Now I realise, that, yes, the Install part of the script was necessary. And all I had to do not to lose 2.1.2 was to redirect the actual zandronum folder (/usr/games/zandronum).


Return to “Zandronum Builds”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest