January 31, 2017
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 at 17:39:09 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> We need to have one in the first place

Can't you use the old 0.17.1 package? That worked for bootstrapping on big-endian PPC64 IIRC.

> Btw, we have a request for an arm64 LDC package, but so far bootstrapping on that platform was unsuccessful.

Yep, Markos created issue #1931 (https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/1931) about that. Noone from the LDC team is currently working on that platform (Dan Olson is using AArch64 with iOS (different ABI), and that seems to work fine), so it's very likely that it won't be fixed soon.
February 01, 2017
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 at 22:13:54 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> Actually I think it's possible to do entirely from within the `snapcraft.yaml` config file.  Probably the best way is to just define a 'part' that builds LDC 0.17.x, and then use the result to build the actual _wanted_ LDC.  It's probably quite straightforward, just wanted to check if it was necessary in the first place.

PR to ldc2.snap that implements such an approach:
https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc2.snap/pull/2
February 01, 2017
On 31 Jan 2017, at 18:39, Matthias Klumpp via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
> We need to have one in the first place ^^ - if GDC could compile LDC, we could solve the issue that way.

This is why I asked whether you can't just keep an old version of LDC around separately. In a non-distro-packager scenario, it's utterly straightforward to have _any_ suitable compiler around, for example by just downloading a recent binary release of DMD or LDC.

Of course, in many distros the objective is to root everything in a (self-bootstrapped) C compiler binary, but can't you just keep a separate package with a C++-based release (0.17.x) around that you can then simply build-depends on? We've been keeping DMD/LDC backwards-compatible with that for this very reason, that is making bootstrapping simple.

 — David
1 2
Next ›   Last »