On 5/23/2013 2:29 PM, Mike Wey wrote:
>
> While the phobos makefile now builds libphobos2.so.0.63.0 and symlinks libphobos2.so / libphobos2.so.0.63. The beta zip contains only libphobos2.so, is that intentional?
>

Yes, it is intentional. Zip files can't contain symlinks, but I want people to have the zip file usable without having to manually create symlinks.  I expect the linux packager to set the name and symlinks.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On May 23, 2013, at 09:13 PM, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think there's a misunderstanding here. The proposal is to cause an error UNLESS you add a switch to the compiler. In other words, you have to opt-in to get the new behavior.
>
> Doing nothing, just running your existing build command, you get an error. Then you have to either:
>
> a) fix all the locations, moving them to static (or realizing your code had a huge bug originally because you thought that was an actual member)
> b) if you plan on using the new feature, add the -enableNewFeature switch (name obviously TBD).
>
> The error message should be something like:
>
> Error: initializing a const instance member needs -enableNewFeature compiler switch, or must be changed to static.

That will still break existing code. Although you'll get a proper error message instead of a silent break.

--
/Jacob Carlborg

On May 21, 2013, at 10:35 PM, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip

Kenji has fixed a couple of issues in the latest beta. Are we ready for a new one or do we have anything else in the pipeline?

--
/Jacob Carlborg

On 05/24/2013 12:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> On 5/23/2013 2:29 PM, Mike Wey wrote:
>>
>> While the phobos makefile now builds libphobos2.so.0.63.0 and symlinks
>> libphobos2.so / libphobos2.so.0.63. The beta zip contains only
>> libphobos2.so, is that intentional?
>>
>
> Yes, it is intentional. Zip files can't contain symlinks, but I want
> people to have the zip file usable without having to manually create
> symlinks.  I expect the linux packager to set the name and symlinks.

Since the shared phobos lib has it's soname set to "libphobos2.so.0.63" when you link with libphobos2.so, at program start up it will be looking for libphobos2.so.0.63 which will fail.

-- 
Mike Wey
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 5/24/2013 2:10 PM, Mike Wey wrote:
> On 05/24/2013 12:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> On 5/23/2013 2:29 PM, Mike Wey wrote:
>>>
>>> While the phobos makefile now builds libphobos2.so.0.63.0 and symlinks
>>> libphobos2.so / libphobos2.so.0.63. The beta zip contains only
>>> libphobos2.so, is that intentional?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is intentional. Zip files can't contain symlinks, but I want
>> people to have the zip file usable without having to manually create
>> symlinks.  I expect the linux packager to set the name and symlinks.
>
> Since the shared phobos lib has it's soname set to "libphobos2.so.0.63" when you link with libphobos2.so, at program start up it will be looking for libphobos2.so.0.63 which will fail.
>

What do you suggest? Considering that zip files don't have symlinks in them.

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

On Friday, May 24, 2013 18:11:43 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/24/2013 2:10 PM, Mike Wey wrote:
> > On 05/24/2013 12:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2013 2:29 PM, Mike Wey wrote:
> >>> While the phobos makefile now builds libphobos2.so.0.63.0 and symlinks libphobos2.so / libphobos2.so.0.63. The beta zip contains only libphobos2.so, is that intentional?
> >> 
> >> Yes, it is intentional. Zip files can't contain symlinks, but I want people to have the zip file usable without having to manually create symlinks. I expect the linux packager to set the name and symlinks.
> > 
> > Since the shared phobos lib has it's soname set to "libphobos2.so.0.63" when you link with libphobos2.so, at program start up it will be looking for libphobos2.so.0.63 which will fail.
> 
> What do you suggest? Considering that zip files don't have symlinks in them.

That would actually be a really good reason to not put all of the OS releases in a single zip file. If they were separated (as a number of people have been requesting for some time), then the POSIX ones could use tar.gz or tar.bz2 or whatever to hold it all, and those can hold symlinks.

Another possibility would be to stop using zip. There _are_ programs on Windows which can handle tar.gz and the like (e.g. 7zip), and it wouldn't surprise me if 7zip's own format could handle symlinks (though I don't know), and a lot of devs are likely to have 7zip installed. It _is_ a bit of a negative to _have_ to have something like 7zip installed, but I believe that there are already quite a few folks who release stuff in 7zip for Windows rather than zip (though it's still a lot less common than zip).

Separating them out would be the better option IMHO (particularly since it's an oft-requested change), but changing the file format would work to.

- Jonathan M Davis
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:20:37 -0400
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
> That would actually be a really good reason to not put all of the OS releases in a single zip file. If they were separated (as a number of people have been requesting for some time), then the POSIX ones could use tar.gz or tar.bz2 or whatever to hold it all, and those can hold symlinks.
> 

Yes, please!

> Another possibility would be to stop using zip. There _are_ programs on Windows which can handle tar.gz and the like (e.g. 7zip), and it wouldn't surprise me if 7zip's own format could handle symlinks (though I don't know), and a lot of devs are likely to have 7zip installed. It _is_ a bit of a negative to _have_ to have something like 7zip installed, but I believe that there are already quite a few folks who release stuff in 7zip for Windows rather than zip (though it's still a lot less common than zip).
> 

IMHO and FWIW, No developer in 2013 has any excuse not to have a
7z-capable extractor.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 05/25/2013 03:20 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 18:11:43 Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 5/24/2013 2:10 PM, Mike Wey wrote:
>>> Since the shared phobos lib has it's soname set to "libphobos2.so.0.63"
>>> when you link with libphobos2.so, at program start up it will be looking
>>> for libphobos2.so.0.63 which will fail.
>>
>> What do you suggest? Considering that zip files don't have symlinks in them.
>
> That would actually be a really good reason to not put all of the OS releases
> in a single zip file. If they were separated (as a number of people have been
> requesting for some time), then the POSIX ones could use tar.gz or tar.bz2 or
> whatever to hold it all, and those can hold symlinks.

Ditto.

But zip on linux supports archiving symlinks using the --symlinks option, when unzipping the symlinks are recreated.
On windows you'll end up with two dummy files when unzipping the symlinks, i don't know if the way the release zip is generated has any affect on the symlinks in the zip.

-- 
Mike Wey
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 5/25/2013 2:40 AM, Mike Wey wrote:
>
>
> On 05/25/2013 03:20 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Friday, May 24, 2013 18:11:43 Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2013 2:10 PM, Mike Wey wrote:
>>>> Since the shared phobos lib has it's soname set to "libphobos2.so.0.63"
>>>> when you link with libphobos2.so, at program start up it will be looking
>>>> for libphobos2.so.0.63 which will fail.
>>>
>>> What do you suggest? Considering that zip files don't have symlinks in them.
>>
>> That would actually be a really good reason to not put all of the OS releases
>> in a single zip file. If they were separated (as a number of people have been
>> requesting for some time), then the POSIX ones could use tar.gz or tar.bz2 or
>> whatever to hold it all, and those can hold symlinks.
>
> Ditto.
>
> But zip on linux supports archiving symlinks using the --symlinks option, when unzipping the symlinks are recreated.
> On windows you'll end up with two dummy files when unzipping the symlinks, i don't know if the way the release zip is generated has any affect on the symlinks in the zip.
>

Unfortunately, zip on linux does not run on windows, and windows doesn't have an ssh host.

In any case, the various OS releases *do* have their own custom downloads, so I don't really understand that complaint. The Linux one, in any case, needs to build those symlinks, and I don't think it currently does.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:41:17 -0700
Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately, zip on linux does not run on windows, and windows doesn't have an ssh host.
> 

Genuine question, not sarcasm: What would the Windows-hosted ssh be needed for? Maybe there's another way to achieve the same effect, like running an SFTP server on the linux side?

> In any case, the various OS releases *do* have their own custom downloads,

AIUI, those are installers. Not useful for those of us who prefer "dload, extract & run".

> so I don't really understand that complaint.

The problem is it's getting ridiculously bloated. On every system I put DMD in, I have to extract around 100MB of irrelevant binaries, just to then go and delete them (!) or else accumulate 1GB of junk per 10 DMDs. On top of all that, it significantly increases both download and extraction times.

The problem I don't understand is what's so wrong or problematic with
having the packaging scripts just generate separate OS archives
instead of separate OS directories within one archive.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta