On Friday, 14 December 2012 at 12:15:28 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

On 12/14/12, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:

I've often had to pester Walter to produce a new build for us when a
critical bug/feature was fixed.

Why waste Walter's time when building is as simple as calling make?

His point was he clearly wants *not* to waste Walter's time.

In the discussions of build system one thread was about using Ruby. A comment was why not just use D to script it, you can do everything in D that you can from ruby (or shell)? I wrote a small script to see how cumbersome it would be to download and build D with that approach: one piece grabs latest source (phobos, runtime, dmd, tools), one builds it. http://pastebin.com/CC7DvZuJ

It ain't pretty and tailored to linux. I don't know how D developers set up their environment - a technote may exist somewhere? The focus in this thread is on release process which is critical, but an addition to wiki page on "how to get started as a developer on D project" might be useful. I don't think it is that complex to build D, but for me it was not as simple as just calling make because you have to get the prereqs, know things like phobos inludes the runtime, so build runtime before phobos, and if you want release and debug builds you should have separate folders since they build in place.
I also made a small change local to posix.mak, to be able to build debug.

------
-GFLAGS = $(WARNINGS) -D__pascal= -fno-exceptions -O2
+ifneq (x,x$(DEBUG))
+ GFLAGS = $(WARNINGS) -D__pascal= -fno-exceptions -g -DDEBUG=1 -DUNITTEST $(COV)
+else
+ GFLAGS = $(WARNINGS) -D__pascal= -fno-exceptions -O2
+endif
------

This may all be bad advice, since I only did it to see if I could step into associative array code to track down a bug and I don't know the good D dev setup for linux.

Any ideas that push toward continuous build/integration/test are the right direction.