LiveCode Forums

Well, In looking across the net, I found much what mwieder pointed out.

I know most package installers use a " equal to or greater than " reference where specific versions are requested, although I'm not sure how that would work setting up a deb installer. For packages almost guaranteed to change, such as libss, is there someway to put '=>libss0.9.8' or even just ' > libss0.9.7 ' which would be 0.9.8 and above ?

In any case, I would certainly remove the requirement for that one, since it is not so easy to get and since you have the higher version listed. Going forward, you probably would want to make sure you don't have multiples of the same libraries listed.

bogs wrote:Well, In looking across the net, I found much what mwieder pointed out.

I know most package installers use a " equal to or greater than " reference where specific versions are requested, although I'm not sure how that would work setting up a deb installer. For packages almost guaranteed to change, such as libss, is there someway to put '=>libss0.9.8' or even just ' > libss0.9.7 ' which would be 0.9.8 and above ?

It doesn't work that way, libssl0.9.8 is a package, libssl1.x is totally different package.
However I repacked the way that the the old libraries are included in the package, so it isn't anymore needed to install them. The package installer download and install just the last version of the libraries available.

...It doesn't work that way, libssl0.9.8 is a package, libssl1.x is totally different package.

Yes, and libssl1.x is the higher of the two packages, which is what I believe you would want installed?

The package installer download and install just the last version of the libraries available.

Which is what I was trying to say you would want to do, however badly I expressed it

Will download and check if it is up again either tomorrow or the next day

Well, worked on Linux Mint (lmde2 "Betsy")

Just tested antiX-64 bit as well. One thing I noticed is that the deb file doesn't indicate that its 64bit, and the file above it says x86-64 (meaning works on both?) so you may want to change 8.1.3.deb to 8.1.3.64.deb or some such

To do the installation, I did first run apt-get dist-upgrade, however that is usually a good first thing to do with any new install imho


*Edit - unless otherwise noted, nothing special was done for the installations.
*Edit 2 - unless otherwise noted, these are all fresh installs running in a vm.

So the only difference I note there is that you're using the debian flavor of mint and I'm running with the ubuntu base.
Not sure if that makes a difference (shouldn't but...)

Yes, LMDE (2) is the continuation of linux mint debian edition, antiX is a mepis spin off. I'll be going down the line of every distro I have access too, both debian based and not so much

I also have the other mint editions, various 'buntus, fedora, open suse (but may have to switch drives for that one) and others that aren't real standard.

So far, the deb installed and that was it, no logging out, updating menus or whatnot. Let me get farther down the list though, maybe some excitement there

Ideally the distro *shouldn't* have anything to do with the menu placement.
Possibly I have something weird in my cinnamon configs.

Ideologically I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, however, realistically I've seen a little weirdness with certain distros, and would not automatically assume the user has done anything without checking it myself

Proceeding down the list, my all-time favorite distro, Debian (any version) with xfce . There were dependencies needed after upgrading, pulse audio, gksu, which usually don't ship in a deb install far back as i can remember, however not a show stopper by any means


Menu entries showed up correctly, I just forgot to include them in the shot

Ubuntu switched to Unity a disastrous menu. Next versions of Ubuntu will be with Gnome 3, the standard menu like KDE and others.
Probably the problem is this.

I may have test Fedora(24) at a later date

The first attempt was an image I hadn't done any updates to :


The second attempt never got through updating, apparently Fedora requires more than 8 gigs to download and install all its updates

This was LinuxMint 13 cinnamon desktop (was surprised I didn't have a newer image around to test on DOH!). I should probably mention that on all the deb based installs, I use the command line, not a graphic installer - I'll be grabbing 17 next, all the 17 Lm's I have are not cinnamon I did take the time to do a full dist upgrade before downloading and installing.

Some may recognize this as the old kde3 desktop (now maintained under TDE, the Trinity Desktop Environment). This is a distro called q4os, and I find for size, speed, and a lot of other reasons (like auto-magically configuring itself for virtualbox!) a great tool to have in general.

For my favorites list, it falls just behind straight up Debian on my machine in real use, so this installation was gratuitous on my part

And here is how the installation went...

I do realize that I've been falling down on the testing job (sorta) by only doing half of the test, the second half being uninstalling and seeing if it removes all traces. I'll start adding that part of it for the system tests that I do.

Removal attempt - First I wanted to see how it was listed as installed on system, so I used This told me the install is listed as livecodecommunity 8.1.3-3
Next I ran The -P option purges the files associated with the entry, it was also removed from the menu. Running dpkg again with the "-l|grep livecode" shows it not installed (gone). I verified the /opt/ folder and other places I thought might show some remnants but was unable to find any, which is a good thing

Re-installing showed no issues.

I think it goes without saying (but am going to say it anyway) that these files as mwieder pointed out only installs in the /opt/ folder, not as a home folder option. This probably would not be an issue for most, or possibly anyone, but is something to consider if you really really really wanted it to install only in your home folder I have noticed in previous versions of Lc installs that even though the option to install for only this user is there, it sometimes didn't work properly (some threads along these lines on the forum).

Max, I'll be sending you a pm as well, hope you find it useful

After dpkg, use:

Noted, aside from updates/upgrades, never spent much time in apt (but will a little more now)