Roku Developer Program

[manoflinux]

"destruk" wrote:
I thought the rollseyes icon would get a point across. It's really cool there are so many ways to get this to work, but I think everyone would be really super impressed if we could see the pure assembly language bytes to make it do this too - maybe you can type that up. 🙂

oh if I misinterpreted your remarks, sorry.

[jbrave]

I use a mac, and in addition to my ~/.bash_profile which has the ROKU_DEV_TARGET, I have two copies named after the ip address (I assign a fixed address from my router based on the mac addr), one each with a different target. When I want to upload I just type:

>source ~/.67
>make install

for roku A

>source ~/.69
make install

for roku B

Nice and simple. The reason one doesn't want to use the web interface becomes clear when you do hundreds of builds and tests per day, you would get carpel tunnel in a week.

- Joel

[RokuMarkn]

"jbrave" wrote:

>source ~/.67
>make install

You can save a few keystrokes by typing "." (a single dot) instead of "source".

--Mark

[manoflinux]

"jbrave" wrote:
I use a mac, and in addition to my ~/.bash_profile which has the ROKU_DEV_TARGET, I have two copies named after the ip address (I assign a fixed address from my router based on the mac addr), one each with a different target. When I want to upload I just type:

>source ~/.67
>make install

for roku A

>source ~/.69
make install

for roku B

Nice and simple. The reason one doesn't want to use the web interface becomes clear when you do hundreds of builds and tests per day, you would get carpel tunnel in a week.

- Joel

I think this is one of those culture things I dont get because although I have years of coding I avoided coding C.
now I can do ./configure; make; make install with the best of them. but making my own make files was something I always left to the c guys. I would write a script to do whatever the make file didn't. always have. Maybe its from having to administer thousands of boxes, I think how do I script around what someone else has forgotten to do or to customize to my situation instead of modifying the make file. Still don't think its as clean but it makes more sense now thanks to kbenson. I am going to finish the command line interface for the web interface. I am sure someone will use it. maybe some linux lurker. I may make a command line that looks for rokus on the network and creates a script to automatically "make" them to all rokus on the network or give you a choice of which ones. that script will use the environment variable.

[dynamitemedia]

"jbrave" wrote:

Nice and simple. The reason one doesn't want to use the web interface becomes clear when you do hundreds of builds and tests per day, you would get carpel tunnel in a week.

- Joel

Thats Funny Joel, its not that bad its how i do it and have been doing it since last summer. I don't want to get the same treatment as destruk because i know i am not qualified to talk about this, as a windows user i just go to the webpage, i honestly can't see how it is that much simpler than a click of the mouse, of course as a windows user not sure we have any other choice.

[manoflinux]

"dynamitemedia" wrote:

"jbrave" wrote:

Nice and simple. The reason one doesn't want to use the web interface becomes clear when you do hundreds of builds and tests per day, you would get carpel tunnel in a week.

- Joel

Thats Funny Joel, its not that bad its how i do it and have been doing it since last summer. I don't want to get the same treatment as destruk because i know i am not qualified to talk about this, as a windows user i just go to the webpage, i honestly can't see how it is that much simpler than a click of the mouse, of course as a windows user not sure we have any other choice.

come on guys. This is not a windows vs linux thing. I dont judge the quality of your VB script because I am unqualified to do so and vice versa. That is what I meant. As a linux guy, you wont hear me saying something like "you used windows scripting host for that, what a hack", because I dont know if its a good choice or not.
But I do agree with Joel. My point in doing this is to make a script for my editor so when I am done with some brightscript I can hit an option in my editor and it will run a script and package up the brightscript and send it to all my rokus's(all two of them) in one fell swoop.

[manoflinux]

"dynamitemedia" wrote:

of course as a windows user not sure we have any other choice.

I am not trying to be snarky on this, but you do have a choice. Cygwin(http://www.cygwin.com/).
They have a bash shell and you could take that code and run it on a windows machine in theory. I have taken some pretty complex bash scripts and ran them in windows before. You just have to make sure you dont use linux only stuff like writing files to /tmp in widows thats normally c:\temp if I remember correctly. What I do is write it to a temp dir underneath the current one. that way it will work in both. then I delete that dir.
But I digress, check out cygwin, I think all the scripts I posted here will work in cygwin. If you try one out and it doesn't work say so and I will fix it so it does.
If you make a roku related script in C# I would appreciate it if you would make it work in mono.
This is what being part of a community is about, we work together to make it stronger as a whole, not just our faction.

[gonzotek]

Cygwin is one way to get the job done, certainly. And it adds a lot of other benefits. But if you don't have any other need for it, the Windows XP command line (and a few other tools built for Win32/64) are more than capable enough to do the same work as the configure/make/install tools, for the purposes of packaging and installing Roku channels. I put the following into my "SendTo" menu (C:\Users\USER_NAME\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\SendTo in Windows 7) and also have something similar installed as a command macro in my code editor. Then I can click on the folder icon my code lives in (the directory above the manifest) and "Send To...>Roku"; or I can have the manifest open in my editor and simply hit a shortcut key there to install.

7z %1.zip %1\*
curl -s -S -F "archive=@%1.zip" -F "mysubmit=Replace"  http://192.168.1.10/plugin_install
pause

Curl is available here: http://curl.haxx.se/download.html (I use the win32 2000/XP binary with ssl, it's most of the way down the page)
7Zip is here: http://www.7-zip.org/download.html

I have to look into adding the possibility of leaving the pngs uncompressed, now that I know about it. 🙂 I could also easily replace the hardcoded IP with an environment variable, but I only have one box I am using for development, and my addresses are stable thanks to dhcp reservations on the router.

Dynamitemedia(and destruk), what is your development environment like(OS and editor)? It can probably be adapted to more automatically build and install your channel changes and save you time as you develop. After you get it set up and working, and you can compare how effortless it is compared to the manual process, you'll probably agree with everyone else that it was worth it :). The more options developers have, be it windows, mac, linux, or other, the better!

[manoflinux]

"gonzotek" wrote:
Cygwin is one way to get the job done, certainly. And it adds a lot of other benefits. But if you don't have any other need for it, the Windows XP command line (and a few other tools built for Win32/64) are more than capable enough to do the same work as the configure/make/install tools, for the purposes of packaging and installing Roku channels. I put the following into my "SendTo" menu ..............................................................................
Dynamitemedia(and destruk), what is your development environment like(OS and editor)? It can probably be adapted to more automatically build and install your channel changes and save you time as you develop. After you get it set up and working, and you can compare how effortless it is compared to the manual process, you'll probably agree with everyone else that it was worth it :). The more options developers have, be it windows, mac, linux, or other, the better!

This is what I am talking about, a well thought out response that helps expands all our knowledge.
Thanks gonzotek, I am for automation no matter what the OS.

[dynamitemedia]

"gonzotek" wrote:

Dynamitemedia(and destruk), what is your development environment like(OS and editor)? It can probably be adapted to more automatically build and install your channel changes and save you time as you develop. After you get it set up and working, and you can compare how effortless it is compared to the manual process, you'll probably agree with everyone else that it was worth it :). The more options developers have, be it windows, mac, linux, or other, the better!

i have said here many times i use windows, i understand your guys intentions and that great. but i am ok with the 2-5 seconds of click browse and upload. I am not in that much of a hurry.