On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 01:53 +0000, BCS wrote:
> Hello chmod+x,
> 
> > Another source of misery are the contents of the dmd zip file. Every time you need to set +x flag for the executable. This is so ridiculous. Does the Creator accept one bit binary patches to the distributions to make the solution a reality? It's open source:
> > 
> > unzip dmdzip.zip
> > chmod +x executables
> > zip -r dmdzip *
> > 
> 
> IIRC the .zip is created on a windows box so that doesn't exactly work. :(

To be honest I don't give a fig about how the zipfile is created, the scripts and executables for Linux should come with the execute permission preset.  It is a ridiculous irritation that after unzipping a supposed binary distribution, I then have to go and work out which files to make executable.  If Windows cannot hack building a proper zipfile then a machine with a proper operating system should be used so that the zipfile is fit for its purpose.


-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On 09/12/2010 10:05 PM, retard wrote:
> Mon, 13 Sep 2010 01:53:06 +0000, BCS wrote:
>
>> Hello chmod+x,
>>
>>> Another source of misery are the contents of the dmd zip file. Every
>>> time you need to set +x flag for the executable. This is so ridiculous.
>>> Does the Creator accept one bit binary patches to the distributions to
>>> make the solution a reality? It's open source:
>>>
>>> unzip dmdzip.zip
>>> chmod +x executables
>>> zip -r dmdzip *
>>>
>>>
>> IIRC the .zip is created on a windows box so that doesn't exactly work.
>> :(
>
> FWIW, http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?
> art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=114660 mentions that the build system
> uses *nix. I'm guessing the internal testing system uses modern *nix
> tools, but the final release is published on a windows machine.

My understanding is that Walter still uses Windows for the final packaging steps. It's ironic because he essentially uses cmd on Windows in conjunction with a few command-line tools of his use that emulate (badly, nonstandardly, and NIHily) 0.1% of Unix. I hope this to gradually change.

Andrei

On 13/09/2010 11:50 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> My understanding is that Walter still uses Windows for the final
> packaging steps. It's ironic because he essentially uses cmd on Windows
> in conjunction with a few command-line tools of his use that emulate
> (badly, nonstandardly, and NIHily) 0.1% of Unix. I hope this to
> gradually change.
>
> Andrei

If this is true I can well understand Walter's position.
My most prolific and effective coding days were back
when 80x25 character mode editing was the norm on a
DOS screen using the brilliant Brief (emacs-like) editor.

Ever since the invention of GUI and mouse and the depreciation
of keyboard skills, I feel that coding productivity has gone
backwards.

As for Unix command line skills that you allude to,
I also understand that one well-versed in the simplicity
of oft-scorned-upon DOS skills can work wonders over and
above others in the large.  Most unix scripts are not works
meant for understanding by the common man.  OTOH, simple
DOS scripts do oft make for the Fanfare for the Command Man.
Hey, perhaps Aaron Copland would have preferred to be a
DOS programmer.

Cheers
Justin Johansson

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 21:53:06 -0400, BCS <none@anon.com> wrote:

> Hello chmod+x,
>
>> Another source of misery are the contents of the dmd zip file. Every
>> time you need to set +x flag for the executable. This is so
>> ridiculous. Does the Creator accept one bit binary patches to the
>> distributions to make the solution a reality? It's open source:
>>  unzip dmdzip.zip
>> chmod +x executables
>> zip -r dmdzip *
>>
>
> IIRC the .zip is created on a windows box so that doesn't exactly work. :(

I have written this script to aid in my installation of different dmd versions, and it's made it much less unpleasant.  Because in addition to the chmod+x, it always unpacks into dmd2, which may not be where you want to put it.  It installs dmd version X into the directory ~/dmd-X and automatically chmods the exes.  It assumes your files all download into the ~/Download directory.  It also will list all dmd versions you have downloaded if you don't specify a version.

#!/bin/sh

if [ -z "$1" ]
then
    echo Error, must supply dmd version to unpack.
    error=1
else

    filename=~/Download/dmd.$1.zip

    if [ ! -f "$filename" ]
    then
        echo DMD version $1 does not exist.
        error=1
    fi
fi

if [ "$error" = "1" ]
then
    echo here are the valid versions:
    for fname in ~/Download/dmd.*.zip
    do
        basename $fname .zip | sed 's/dmd\.//g'
    done
    exit 1
fi

tmpdir=`mktemp -d /tmp/dmd.XXXXXXXX`
cd $tmpdir
unzip -q $filename
chmod 755 dmd2/linux/bin/*
mv dmd2 ~/dmd-$1
cd ~
rmdir $tmpdir
exit 0

-Steve

On 14/09/2010 12:55 AM, Justin Johansson wrote:
> meant for understanding by the common man. OTOH, simple
> DOS scripts do oft make for the Fanfare for the Command Man.
> Hey, perhaps Aaron Copland would have preferred to be a
> DOS programmer.


Seriously, that was just a serendipitous typo.
I meant the Common Man, not the "Command" Man
as in say a "command-line" man.  Maybe that wasn't
really a typo but some Freudian slip on my part. :-)

-- Justin

Command Man, and his sidekick, Clippy.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Justin Johansson <no@spam.com> wrote:
> On 14/09/2010 12:55 AM, Justin Johansson wrote:
>>
>> meant for understanding by the common man. OTOH, simple
>> DOS scripts do oft make for the Fanfare for the Command Man.
>> Hey, perhaps Aaron Copland would have preferred to be a
>> DOS programmer.
>
>
> Seriously, that was just a serendipitous typo.
> I meant the Common Man, not the "Command" Man
> as in say a "command-line" man.  Maybe that wasn't
> really a typo but some Freudian slip on my part. :-)
>
> -- Justin
>

Russel Winder wrote:
> To be honest I don't give a fig about how the zipfile is created, the
> scripts and executables for Linux should come with the execute
> permission preset.  It is a ridiculous irritation that after unzipping a
> supposed binary distribution, I then have to go and work out which files
> to make executable.  If Windows cannot hack building a proper zipfile
> then a machine with a proper operating system should be used so that the
> zipfile is fit for its purpose.


Of course you're right, and I know it, I've just been lazy. I spent some time on google and cannot find a zip program for Windows that enables one to set (or even display) the file attributes in zip files. Go figure. So I'll just write one using Phobos' std.zip.

He he.

Of course "SideKick" itself was some very popular TSR
utility wasn't it?  (But you didn't mean that?)
For the young people here, TSR is Terminate and Stay Resident,
an artifact of DOS 640KB days.  No doubt see Wikipedia for more.
Oh dear.  :-)

But Clippy? The only Clippy I know (and hated) it that
stupid yesteryear Word popup.  You meant that thing?

- Justin


On 14/09/2010 1:40 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Command Man, and his sidekick, Clippy.
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Justin Johansson<no@spam.com>  wrote:
>> On 14/09/2010 12:55 AM, Justin Johansson wrote:
>>>
>>> meant for understanding by the common man. OTOH, simple
>>> DOS scripts do oft make for the Fanfare for the Command Man.
>>> Hey, perhaps Aaron Copland would have preferred to be a
>>> DOS programmer.
>>
>>
>> Seriously, that was just a serendipitous typo.
>> I meant the Common Man, not the "Command" Man
>> as in say a "command-line" man.  Maybe that wasn't
>> really a typo but some Freudian slip on my part. :-)
>>
>> -- Justin
>>

On 13/09/10 21:43, Justin Johansson wrote:
> He he.
>
> Of course "SideKick" itself was some very popular TSR
> utility wasn't it? (But you didn't mean that?)
> For the young people here, TSR is Terminate and Stay Resident,
> an artifact of DOS 640KB days. No doubt see Wikipedia for more.
> Oh dear. :-)
>
> But Clippy? The only Clippy I know (and hated) it that
> stupid yesteryear Word popup. You meant that thing?
>
> - Justin

At some point during my childhood I acquired the nickname Clippy, it's followed me ever since. Fortunately very few people I know know the nickname commonly associated with that wretched paper clip, so it never causes too much dismay.

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/

Lost in translation.

Yes I was only kidding. :)

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Justin Johansson <no@spam.com> wrote:
> He he.
>
> Of course "SideKick" itself was some very popular TSR
> utility wasn't it?  (But you didn't mean that?)
> For the young people here, TSR is Terminate and Stay Resident,
> an artifact of DOS 640KB days.  No doubt see Wikipedia for more.
> Oh dear.  :-)
>
> But Clippy? The only Clippy I know (and hated) it that stupid yesteryear Word popup.  You meant that thing?
>
> - Justin
>
>
> On 14/09/2010 1:40 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>
>> Command Man, and his sidekick, Clippy.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Justin Johansson<no@spam.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14/09/2010 12:55 AM, Justin Johansson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> meant for understanding by the common man. OTOH, simple
>>>> DOS scripts do oft make for the Fanfare for the Command Man.
>>>> Hey, perhaps Aaron Copland would have preferred to be a
>>>> DOS programmer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seriously, that was just a serendipitous typo.
>>> I meant the Common Man, not the "Command" Man
>>> as in say a "command-line" man.  Maybe that wasn't
>>> really a typo but some Freudian slip on my part. :-)
>>>
>>> -- Justin
>>>
>
>