Add installation steps to readme

[mortinger91]

Since I had to do this myself and I found the readme lacking in this regard, I figured this could be a nice addition for new users

[Paiusco]

No, you don't need to do that, as the systemd .service comes with it. When you compile, you can even define on CMake if you want a system user service or system service...

If you get the code, compile and install it using cmake, you're going to have the .service files in place, depending on what you chose during compilation... You may need to edit it to your liking, but there's no need to add this into the README, may cause confusion

[nerumo]

since Ubuntu isn't using a newer version, the .service was missing for me too. But that's Ubuntu's problem

[python012]

Proposal: add a "Distribution packages" note instead of manual steps

I hit the exact same issue on Ubuntu 22.04 — the apt version (0.1.8-3) has a SIGABRT bug on mousemove and ships no .service file.

I understand @Paiusco's point that adding manual copy-paste steps would be confusing when cmake already generates the .service. But the README currently gives a new user zero guidance on what to do after cloning, which is a real pain point.

Suggestion: Instead of manual steps, add a "Distribution packages" section to the README that:

1. Lists known distro packages (Arch, Ubuntu, etc.)
2. Notes known issues per distro (e.g., Ubuntu 0.1.8-3: mousemove SIGABRT, no .service)
3. Recommends building from source for a working setup

This way:

• Users coming from distro packages get warned early
• The cmake workflow stays the canonical install method
• No duplicated manual steps to maintain

[Paiusco]

@python012 That's a bit simpler and clearer indeed for this project.

But for that one can check: https://repology.org/project/ydotool/versions and see which distro versions has non-working (outdated) packages.

Although I find a bit weird that a upstream has to list issues on current master README pointing bugs from very old versions just because downstream is either old or not packaging it correctly... Can you imagine how much that would be if a application has a new version every couple of months? That starts to be unmaintanable and IMHO shouldn't be the responsability of the upstream.

Note: Ubuntu 26.04 is using the latest released version from here, if anything happens there, open a ticket under debian and the maintainer (currently me) will take it.