I recently compiled my game to Linux with fpc, and while it works perfectly, now I want to add an icon to it.
Is there anyway to embed an icon inside the executable?
I recently compiled my game to Linux with fpc, and while it works perfectly, now I want to add an icon to it.
Is there anyway to embed an icon inside the executable?
I think Lazarus can do that, there is some setting in the program I believe...not sure about pure fpc though
Games:
Seafox
Pages:
Syntax Error Software itch.io page
Online Chess
http://gameknot.com/#paul_nicholls
No, icons can't be inside the executable and shows somewhere in file browser/etc. You can show your icon only in menus/etc. For this you need to place your icon into /usr/share/pixmaps(with name equal to executable). Or if you can provide different sizes for icon then place them here: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/size/apps.Is there anyway to embed an icon inside the executable?
From what I've read in the wiki, it seems that even lazarus only supports icons on Windows and Mac, and in Linux icons need to be in a specific folder.
Yes, and this "some kind of installer" is a "package"(most popular - deb and rpm). But different GNU/Linux distros use different type of packages.to have some kind of installer, right?
Although if you made a deb/rpm solution you'd cover roughly 80% of the linux market, I know a lot of people are now distributing tar.gz packages with a install.sh script which is nice since it build from source/.a and .o files upon installation and does all the dirty work - be it debian, redhat, the pacman system arch uses etc... All you'd need in the dep list are the fpc meta package and the appropriate dev libs. Although, you could include the *-dev .so files in your gz archive...
The niceness of just doing a
In 50 less keystrokes thanks to tab in tty is so nice for the end user.... even the make $ make install route is niceCode:tar xvf somepackage.tar.gz cd somepackage sudo ./install.sh
I once tried to change the world. But they wouldn't give me the source code. Damned evil cunning.
I see, but does that means that the package needs to include the source?
This is a comercial project, also available for other platforms, so I don't want to release the source for now.
Right now I've simply put the compiled executable along with the resource files in a tar.gz file, would there be any problem with this approach?
Unless I am mistaken you could just include the .a and .o file and then just do the linking on the target - I recall some closed source codecs and etc worked that way...
In your instance (executable in tar.gz) I guess you would just have to link it dynamically and hope for the best - just be warned that if any bugs arise with this setup, you cant ask for compiler messages and you may end up having a super fun time with clients... Or at least thats my experience with the last Ludum dare fiasco.
I once tried to change the world. But they wouldn't give me the source code. Damned evil cunning.
If you don't use libraries with GPL-like license(or LGPL with static linking) - then no need to include source code. For Linux rules of opening source code is the same as for other platformsI see, but does that means that the package needs to include the source?
Bookmarks