Talk:Setting up a development environment (Linux)



Installer scripts

What is the difference between both installer scripts? -no_skill 04:49, 30 January 2006 (PST)

ooPo's GP2XDev install more libs than devkitGP2X. devkitGP2X looks like an unofficial GP2X version of devkitPro while GP2XDev is a port of ooPo's PSPDev perl script.--mongolito404 00:51, 31 January 2006 (PST)
Thanks. Could you add that to the article? -no_skill 09:14, 31 January 2006 (PST)
I've added a notes about devkitPro and PS2/PSPDev.--mongolito404 09:49, 1 February 2006 (PST)

Maybe this could be a bit more accurate

Edit all the .la files in /usr/local/arm-dev/arm-linux/usr/lib to make their paths correct.

I don't know if I am the only one who is no exactly sure about what to do. I just guessed that I have to replace all the paths like "/home/depss/.../lib" with "/usr/local/arm-dev/arm-linux/usr/lib". I am not absolutely sure about this so maybe someone can confirm and/or edit the instruction. Thanks. (dedeibel)

Each option does not achieve the same goal

The article implies there are three ways (a, b, and c) to set up a development environment. It is reasonable to expect then, that choosing any of the three should give you similar end results. This is not the case, Namely: option 'a' only builds a cross compiler, none of the libraries needed for development are built. Option 'b', from what I can tell, provides a complete linux dev environment. Option 'c' is a link to non-linux specific directions on how to build a dev environment.

At the very least, it should be noted in section 'a' that the user still needs to get the required development libraries. (trent)

Why undo my changes?

Could you please explain what was wrong with my changes that caused you to undo them? --bsammon

Instead of keeping the easiest way on top (the installer script which automates everything done under prebuilt binaries) you made a more complicated way more popular. -no_skill 04:10, 7 January 2006 (PST)
I added useful information that you removed. If you disagreed with the ordering, you should have just reordered it. It's not clear from the version you put up (and reinstated) that the "easiest" way compiles from source, thus taking longer (a _lot_ longer if you don't have a really fast machine).

Personally, I think the mini-installer from is just as easy, and it's faster (since it doesn't compile from source) and it installs the SDK, which the installer from the archive doesn't. --bsammon

Please keep the standard discussion entry guidelines (name in same line, no extra code block for names), etc. Doesn't the install script under A) just load the prebuilt stuff? -no_skill 23:07, 10 January 2006 (PST)


I added the section on open2x because of all the toolchains listed here, this was the only one I could get working - with some hacking - on ubuntu edgy eft.Inksmithy 14:08, 6 December 2006 (PST)

Suggestions for Clean Up

Hello, I have participated to the french version of this article and started with a classictranslation of this one , but recently, I improved it to consider the new Open2x option and to clarify the meaning of cross compilation, the goals of the scripts and the solution to the bug that have been reported (when you build the GP2X SDk, you have to force the usage of the BASH shell, otherwise it breaks on a parsing error on "version.c", when building GLIBC).

I tried to make it as didactical as I could, to help people and beginners (like me sometimes) to understand. My english is not wonderful, and I just wanted to propose you to have look to the changes I made if it could help the english version too :

Personal tools