On 2/18/2014 10:47 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> To avoid confusion:
> It is not Fedora people who are not willing to help. Problem is with
> mirrors.
>
> Imagine personX or companyX decides to become mirror of distribution which
> has DMD in their official repository. Before they sync Fedora packages, they
> have to ask permissions of all DMD (and similar) copyright owners for
> distribution permission. Now Imagine there are hundreds of DMD-like packages
> in there... Therefore no serious distribution will accept DMD-like package
> in their repository.

I understand that, I'm just asking the people that deal with this to contact me and propose a resolution.

I'll mark the issue 11114 invalid so currently we cannot reproduce the issue.

To me 11946 is an invalid issue.

12193 is not a blocker for 2.065 release (it's only in git-head). And I opened a compiler fix for that: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3282

Kenji Hara

2014-02-19 12:05 GMT+09:00 Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com>:

> Bugzilla regressions 6329, 11114 and 11946 have been around for a few releases.
>
> Not sure 11972 is even a regression.
>
> 12167 is possibly invalid.
>
> 12190 is shared libraries on OSX, which is not officially supported yet.
>
> 12193 is open.
>

Thank you, Kenji. Have I mentioned that you've been incredibly productive in sorting out compiler issues? Thank you!

On 2/18/2014 7:54 PM, Kenji Hara wrote:
> I'll mark the issue 11114 invalid so currently we cannot reproduce the issue.
>
> To me 11946 is an invalid issue.
>
> 12193 is not a blocker for 2.065 release (it's only in git-head). And I opened a compiler fix for that: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3282
>
> Kenji Hara
>
> 2014-02-19 12:05 GMT+09:00 Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com <mailto:walter@digitalmars.com>>:
>
>     Bugzilla regressions 6329, 11114 and 11946 have been around for a few
>     releases.
>
>     Not sure 11972 is even a regression.
>
>     12167 is possibly invalid.
>
>     12190 is shared libraries on OSX, which is not officially supported yet.
>
>     12193 is open.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

>
> I understand that, I'm just asking the people that deal with this to contact me and propose a resolution.

I have a feeling it should be vice-versa. They do not care whether DMD is in their repository or not. It is us, the community, who needs this. :) So, we should be us who are in contact with them. Nobody has time for buearucracy, including me. That is why I build my own DMD RPMs.

I talked to Fedora devs on IRC for hours, as I am on that channel whenever I am on IRC. When we talked about DMD, nobody came up with any solution.

On 2/19/2014 1:59 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>>
>> I understand that, I'm just asking the people that deal with this to contact
>> me and propose a resolution.
>
> I have a feeling it should be vice-versa. They do not care whether DMD is in
> their repository or not. It is us, the community, who needs this. :) So, we
> should be us who are in contact with them. Nobody has time for buearucracy,
> including me. That is why I build my own DMD RPMs.
>
> I talked to Fedora devs on IRC for hours, as I am on that channel whenever I am
> on IRC. When we talked about DMD, nobody came up with any solution.

I don't even know who to talk to.

On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 19:23:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> I don't even know who to talk to.

Well first you should think of solution to propose. You are not hoping to convince them to ignore the license, aren't you? :)

Andrew Edwards, el 17 de February a las 17:59 me escribiste:
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0~rc1-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-65_2.065.0~rc1-0_amd64.deb

Hi, I'm inspecting in particular these debian packages and I found points that could be improved:

* First is those two packages conflict and both provides the phobos
  libraries. Usually in Debian/Ubuntu what you should provide is
  a libphobos with the .so and a libphobos-dev with the headers and
  .so.version and .a. The dmd package should probably depend on
  libphobos-dev and should not provide headers or libraries.

* It is probably a good idea to provide a separate package for the extra
  tools (ddemangle, rdmd, etc), probably dmd-util or something like
  that. Maybe even a package per tool but it could be too much.

* 32 bit and 64 bit libraries should probably also be provided by
  different packages (with the same name but different architectures,
  this is supported by multiarch). In the common setup people only care
  about the current architecture and is not interested in
  cross-compiling.

* There is garbage in the include directories in phobos in the dmd
  package (in /usr/include/dmd/phobos). There are README files and even
  .d files that could get imported by mistake by user code. Ideally this
  should be sanitized and documentation moved to /usr/share/doc/dmd (or
  the respective phobos package).

I do understand maybe is not a priority to fix them right now (or for this release) and I do appreciate the huge advances made in terms of release and distribution, but I thought it might be useful to mention them before I forget. :)

Thanks!

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUNTAN FIRMAS Y HUELLAS POR EL CACHORRO CONDENADO A MUERTE...
	-- Crónica TV
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

El 20/02/14 23:03, Leandro Lucarella ha escrit:
> Andrew Edwards, el 17 de February a las 17:59 me escribiste:
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0~rc1-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-65_2.065.0~rc1-0_amd64.deb
> 
> Hi, I'm inspecting in particular these debian packages and I found points that could be improved:
> 
> * First is those two packages conflict and both provides the phobos
>   libraries. Usually in Debian/Ubuntu what you should provide is
>   a libphobos with the .so and a libphobos-dev with the headers and
>   .so.version and .a. The dmd package should probably depend on
>   libphobos-dev and should not provide headers or libraries.

This is not entirely correct.

I would like to clarify something first:
The dmd deb packages from <http://dlang.org/download.html> are "all-in-one" packages, so users has to download just one file to install everything related to dmd, and easily upgrade everything to new versions. This shouldn't be compared with the Debian repositories system, for that you have <http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/>.

On d-apt repository there are four packages related with dmd:
- "dmd-bin" - includes the compiler and other utilities. Depends on "libphobos2-dev"
- "dmd-doc" - includes the documentation with a system menu entry, and man pages.
- "libphobos2-65" - includes the runtime shared library "libphobos2.so.65.0" (real share lib) and "libphobos2.so.65" (SONAME symlink to the real lib).
- "libphobos2-dev" - includes "libphobos2.a", source modules and "libphobos2.so" (symlink to real lib. It's just for linking purposes). Depends on "dmd-bin" and "libphobos2-65"

A couple of things about "libphobos2-65":
- It's present on <http://ftp.digitalmars.com/> because shared libraries are necessaries at run-time. Thus, users can run programs compiled with dmd on computers without the compiler installed.
- Version is included on package name, allowing to install several versions at same time.

"dmd-bin", "dmd-doc" and "libphobos2-dev" conflicts "dmd". "libphobos2-65" conflicts only "dmd" v2.065, but not other versions.

> 
> * It is probably a good idea to provide a separate package for the extra
>   tools (ddemangle, rdmd, etc), probably dmd-util or something like
>   that. Maybe even a package per tool but it could be too much.

Ok, added on TODO list, in a very low priority.

> 
> * 32 bit and 64 bit libraries should probably also be provided by
>   different packages (with the same name but different architectures,
>   this is supported by multiarch). In the common setup people only care
>   about the current architecture and is not interested in
>   cross-compiling.

This is already done on d-apt.

> 
> * There is garbage in the include directories in phobos in the dmd
>   package (in /usr/include/dmd/phobos). There are README files and even
>   .d files that could get imported by mistake by user code. Ideally this
>   should be sanitized and documentation moved to /usr/share/doc/dmd (or
>   the respective phobos package).

You're right, I'll clean up, but I don't know if everything out of "std" directory can be removed. "etc" folder can be removed?

> 
> I do understand maybe is not a priority to fix them right now (or for this release) and I do appreciate the huge advances made in terms of release and distribution, but I thought it might be useful to mention them before I forget. :)
> 
> Thanks!
> 

Thank you for your comments.

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

Jordi Sayol, el 21 de February a las 00:09 me escribiste:
> El 20/02/14 23:03, Leandro Lucarella ha escrit:
> > Andrew Edwards, el 17 de February a las 17:59 me escribiste:
> >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0~rc1-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-65_2.065.0~rc1-0_amd64.deb
> > 
> > Hi, I'm inspecting in particular these debian packages and I found points that could be improved:
> > 
> > * First is those two packages conflict and both provides the phobos
> >   libraries. Usually in Debian/Ubuntu what you should provide is
> >   a libphobos with the .so and a libphobos-dev with the headers and
> >   .so.version and .a. The dmd package should probably depend on
> >   libphobos-dev and should not provide headers or libraries.
> 
> This is not entirely correct.
> 
> I would like to clarify something first:
> The dmd deb packages from <http://dlang.org/download.html> are
> "all-in-one" packages, so users has to download just one file to
> install everything related to dmd, and easily upgrade everything to
> new versions. This shouldn't be compared with the Debian repositories
> system, for that you have <http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/>.

Yeah, that's true, but then I don't understand why a libphobos2 is provided at all as a simple download side by side with the all-in-one dmd package. That's confusing.

> On d-apt repository there are four packages related with dmd:
> - "dmd-bin" - includes the compiler and other utilities. Depends on "libphobos2-dev"
> - "dmd-doc" - includes the documentation with a system menu entry, and man pages.
> - "libphobos2-65" - includes the runtime shared library "libphobos2.so.65.0" (real share lib) and "libphobos2.so.65" (SONAME symlink to the real lib).
> - "libphobos2-dev" - includes "libphobos2.a", source modules and "libphobos2.so" (symlink to real lib. It's just for linking purposes). Depends on "dmd-bin" and "libphobos2-65"
> 
> A couple of things about "libphobos2-65":
> - It's present on <http://ftp.digitalmars.com/> because shared libraries are necessaries at run-time. Thus, users can run programs compiled with dmd on computers without the compiler installed.
> - Version is included on package name, allowing to install several versions at same time.

I think this doesn't make sense. Providing dependencies is something each software distributor should do. Either you go through the package system (in which case this .deb is not needed) or you take care of providing an all-in-one bundle as provided by the direct download dmd package. I really don't see the point on providing a libphobos2 package outside a proper apt repository.

> > * There is garbage in the include directories in phobos in the dmd
> >   package (in /usr/include/dmd/phobos). There are README files and even
> >   .d files that could get imported by mistake by user code. Ideally this
> >   should be sanitized and documentation moved to /usr/share/doc/dmd (or
> >   the respective phobos package).
> 
> You're right, I'll clean up, but I don't know if everything out of "std" directory can be removed. "etc" folder can be removed?

I don't think so, the `etc` package is somehow official. But probably somebody else can provide a better answer.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo soy Peperino él que nunca toma vino, yo soy aquel que por la mañana
escucha Salatino.
	-- Peperino Pómoro
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Jordi Sayol <g.sayol@yahoo.es> wrote:>

> > * There is garbage in the include directories in phobos in the dmd
> >   package (in /usr/include/dmd/phobos). There are README files and even
> >   .d files that could get imported by mistake by user code. Ideally this
> >   should be sanitized and documentation moved to /usr/share/doc/dmd (or
> >   the respective phobos package).
>
> You're right, I'll clean up, but I don't know if everything out of "std"
> directory can be removed.
> "etc" folder can be removed?
>

I'm not taking a look at what is in the directory but IIRC std, etc both can't be removed. They do contain .d files, but these are used as headers. druntime uses .di but this isn't true of Phobos, so don't touch the .d.

-- 
Jesse Phillips