El 27/11/13 13:56, Dicebot ha escrit:
> On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 at 21:04:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> I really think providing just source + single additional .deb package as an example is the best way to go.
>>
>> Well we kind of do that already. No?
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> No. We provide Linux binaries in .zip and pretend they are expected to work for all distros which simply can't happen in general. Fedora bug report would not have been valid if not implication that there is a supported binary distribution for Fedora.
> 
> I suggest to simply stop pretending any kind of such support exist and drop Linux binaries from .zip at all. Motivating people to create dmd packages for their native distros scales much better (and solves most/all curl issues for Linux)
> 

We should then generate dmd packages for every distro release because they can fail between releases too.

The only thing that breaks the current dmd zip system is libcurl dependency. All other thinks properly works on all Linux distros/releases.

Should we change all this well working system due to a single problem with an external library dependency?

-- 
Jordi Sayol

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 15:59:12 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
> We should then generate dmd packages for every distro release because they can fail between releases too.

Or just let specific distro package maintainers do their job.

> The only thing that breaks the current dmd zip system is libcurl dependency. All other thinks properly works on all Linux distros/releases.

Are you actually sure? _all_ stuff? _all_ distros? I doubt it.

> Should we change all this well working system due to a single problem with an external library dependency?

It is not working, it just happens to not work for a very tiny user base which is more likely to workaround the issue by building from source other than reporting it.

Really, I don't care what the solution is. You can leave current archive as-is and close that Fedora issue as invalid, it is not that important. Just stop pretending it is supported for all platforms and that it can _possibly_ be supported for all platforms.

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 11:37:45 UTC, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
> I definitely agree. In addition D has obtained some nice features since the definition of the std.net.curl API that I would liked have used back then.

What are you thinking of there? I think plain old classes and delegates are a good fit for http stuff.

El 28/11/13 17:12, Dicebot ha escrit:
> On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 15:59:12 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
>> We should then generate dmd packages for every distro release because they can fail between releases too.
> 
> Or just let specific distro package maintainers do their job.
> 
>> The only thing that breaks the current dmd zip system is libcurl dependency. All other thinks properly works on all Linux distros/releases.
> 
> Are you actually sure? _all_ stuff? _all_ distros? I doubt it.

Please can you show something on dmd/phobos that fails on any actively maintained Linux distro that properly works on another one?

Just libcurl dependency.

> 
>> Should we change all this well working system due to a single problem with an external library dependency?
> 
> It is not working, it just happens to not work for a very tiny user base which is more likely to workaround the issue by building from source other than reporting it.
> 
> Really, I don't care what the solution is. You can leave current archive as-is and close that Fedora issue as invalid, it is not that important. Just stop pretending it is supported for all platforms and that it can _possibly_ be supported for all platforms.
> 

Things, if simpler, much better.

I think is better to keep a single dmd/phobos binary/libray for Linux if they are capable to work on all active distros, and this is the case without libcurl dependency.

If a new libcurl D wrapper project is created, I'll be the first to generate deb packages for it, but out of phobos.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 17:12:25 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
> Please can you show something on dmd/phobos that fails on any actively maintained Linux distro that properly works on another one?

The dmd zip doesn't work on CentOS 5 because of a libc version mismatch, so it has to be recompiled from source, and then sometimes dmd.conf has to be edited too because it passes an option that older ld's didn't understand.

CentOS 5 may be old, but it is still in use in a lot of places.


BTW I'm in favor of keeping the zip, it is perfect for me on my slackware+wine setup. But adding other options is cool too.

El 28/11/13 18:17, Adam D. Ruppe ha escrit:
> On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 17:12:25 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
>> Please can you show something on dmd/phobos that fails on any actively maintained Linux distro that properly works on another one?
> 
> The dmd zip doesn't work on CentOS 5 because of a libc version mismatch, so it has to be recompiled from source, and then sometimes dmd.conf has to be edited too because it passes an option that older ld's didn't understand.
> 
> CentOS 5 may be old, but it is still in use in a lot of places.

It properly runs on Centos 6 (6.4).

Which Centos version? 5.0? 5.10?

> 
> 
> BTW I'm in favor of keeping the zip, it is perfect for me on my slackware+wine setup. But adding other options is cool too.
>

Sure, I'm agree.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Am Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:08:20 +0100
schrieb Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com>:

> I mean that I like the current zip to stay.

Don't be so ignorant. The zip is broken for all Linux systems bug Debian. I thought that with D Version Manager you tried to support more than one Linux distribution...

-- 
Marco

On Thursday, November 28, 2013 08:36:08 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 21:46, Dicebot wrote:
> > Distributing binaries for Mac and Windows is fine (though it is much better to keep those separate archives and patch DVM accordingly), this thread is about Linux ones. You did not have any problems with it because Debian derivatives take major percentage of users and you are likely to have one.
> 
> If we're removing the zip as it currently is, it's another prof that D isn't stable as it claims to be.

The zip has nothing to do with the stability of D itself. It just has to do with the stalibity of how D is distributed, which is a completely different issue. I can see why you care about the zip, given that you wrote and maintain a tool which relies on it, but calling D unstable because we might change how we release it would be like calling KDE or gnome unstable, because they changed from distributing their code in tar.gz files to tar.bz2 files. How a program or library is distributed has nothing to do with the stability of the code itself.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 11/28/13 11:17 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 08:36:08 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2013-11-27 21:46, Dicebot wrote:
>>> Distributing binaries for Mac and Windows is fine (though it is much
>>> better to keep those separate archives and patch DVM accordingly), this
>>> thread is about Linux ones. You did not have any problems with it
>>> because Debian derivatives take major percentage of users and you are
>>> likely to have one.
>>
>> If we're removing the zip as it currently is, it's another prof that D
>> isn't stable as it claims to be.
>
> The zip has nothing to do with the stability of D itself. It just has to do
> with the stalibity of how D is distributed, which is a completely different
> issue. I can see why you care about the zip, given that you wrote and maintain
> a tool which relies on it, but calling D unstable because we might change how
> we release it would be like calling KDE or gnome unstable, because they
> changed from distributing their code in tar.gz files to tar.bz2 files. How a
> program or library is distributed has nothing to do with the stability of the
> code itself.

Besides the fundamental point remains. People don't need to download all platform files on one platform. It just doesn't follow. And the larger the distribution will become the more annoying the issue will be.

Andrei

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:29:04AM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: [...]
> Besides the fundamental point remains. People don't need to download all platform files on one platform. It just doesn't follow. And the larger the distribution will become the more annoying the issue will be.
[...]

I don't see what's the big deal with providing one zip per supported platform (and each Linux distro is to be considered a separate platform here), *and* a dmd_everything.zip for distributors who *want* to have everything in one (they are installing D onto a network of heterogenous machines, they're making a distribution CD, etc.).

The default download *should* be the platform-specific zip / tarball / package, but there's no need to kill the all-inclusive zip that contains literally *everything*, for the people who want it for whatever reason.


T

-- 
First Rule of History: History doesn't repeat itself -- historians merely repeat each other.