> yum whatprovides "gcc(x86-32)" tells (or rpm --aid -Uvh before it).

Make that "yum provides", I was thinking of "rpm --what-provides"...

--anders

Lutger Wrote:

> You need the i686 versions of some packages, probably start with libgcc (yum install libgcc.i686) and glibc, I don't remember which exactly are required. I have dmd running on 64 bit fedora just fine, it can work. There is also a 64-bit dmd in the making which should solve all those problems.

Based on a previous post by Walter, it sounds like he is working on just the code generation for 64bit and does not see a need to make the compiler 64 bit itself.

== Quote from Jesse Phillips (jessekphillips+D@gmail.com)'s article
> Lutger Wrote:
> > You need the i686 versions of some packages, probably start with libgcc (yum install libgcc.i686) and glibc, I don't remember which exactly are required. I have dmd running on 64 bit fedora just fine, it can work. There is also a 64-bit dmd in the making which should solve all those problems.
> Based on a previous post by Walter, it sounds like he is working on just the
code generation for 64bit and does not see a need to make the compiler 64 bit itself.

The compiler already has been compilable as a 64-bit binary for months.  IMHO, though, Walter should release a 64-bit pre-compiled binary to make life easy for ppl with 64-bit installs.

dsimcha Wrote:

> == Quote from Jesse Phillips (jessekphillips+D@gmail.com)'s article
> > Lutger Wrote:
> > > You need the i686 versions of some packages, probably start with libgcc (yum install libgcc.i686) and glibc, I don't remember which exactly are required. I have dmd running on 64 bit fedora just fine, it can work. There is also a 64-bit dmd in the making which should solve all those problems.
> > Based on a previous post by Walter, it sounds like he is working on just the
> code generation for 64bit and does not see a need to make the compiler 64 bit itself.
> 
> The compiler already has been compilable as a 64-bit binary for months.  IMHO, though, Walter should release a 64-bit pre-compiled binary to make life easy for ppl with 64-bit installs.

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 *

chmod+x Wrote:

> dsimcha Wrote:
> 
> > == Quote from Jesse Phillips (jessekphillips+D@gmail.com)'s article
> > > Lutger Wrote:
> > > > You need the i686 versions of some packages, probably start with libgcc (yum install libgcc.i686) and glibc, I don't remember which exactly are required. I have dmd running on 64 bit fedora just fine, it can work. There is also a 64-bit dmd in the making which should solve all those problems.
> > > Based on a previous post by Walter, it sounds like he is working on just the
> > code generation for 64bit and does not see a need to make the compiler 64 bit itself.
> > 
> > The compiler already has been compilable as a 64-bit binary for months.  IMHO, though, Walter should release a 64-bit pre-compiled binary to make life easy for ppl with 64-bit installs.
> 
> 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 *

Okey, the binary patch is actually 349 bytes. A repackaged dmd is also 523737 bytes smaller (dmd 2.048, repackaged with 7z). That would save 5% in bandwidth cost and download time. Nobody cares.

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. :(

-- 
... <IXOYE><

Nobody would care if the download was fast. :) I always get around ~100-150KB/sec with downloads from digitalmars.com, even though I can easily reach 0.5Mb/sec on other websites.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:52 AM, chmod+x <zip@should.support.it> wrote:
> chmod+x Wrote:
>
>> dsimcha Wrote:
>>
>> > == Quote from Jesse Phillips (jessekphillips+D@gmail.com)'s article
>> > > Lutger Wrote:
>> > > > You need the i686 versions of some packages, probably start with libgcc (yum install libgcc.i686) and glibc, I don't remember which exactly are required. I have dmd running on 64 bit fedora just fine, it can work. There is also a 64-bit dmd in the making which should solve all those problems.
>> > > Based on a previous post by Walter, it sounds like he is working on just the
>> > code generation for 64bit and does not see a need to make the compiler 64 bit itself.
>> >
>> > The compiler already has been compilable as a 64-bit binary for months.  IMHO, though, Walter should release a 64-bit pre-compiled binary to make life easy for ppl with 64-bit installs.
>>
>> 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 *
>
> Okey, the binary patch is actually 349 bytes. A repackaged dmd is also 523737 bytes smaller (dmd 2.048, repackaged with 7z). That would save 5% in bandwidth cost and download time. Nobody cares.
>

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.

On Sunday 12 September 2010 18:53:06 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. :(

That would explain why the permissions are always messed up on dmd and phobos' files. There are some things that Windows does better than Linux. However, file permissions is _not_ one of them.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 2010-09-13 02:10, dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Jesse Phillips (jessekphillips+D@gmail.com)'s article
>> Lutger Wrote:
>>> You need the i686 versions of some packages, probably start with libgcc (yum
>>> install libgcc.i686) and glibc, I don't remember which exactly are required. I
>>> have dmd running on 64 bit fedora just fine, it can work. There is also a 64-bit
>>> dmd in the making which should solve all those problems.
>> Based on a previous post by Walter, it sounds like he is working on just the
> code generation for 64bit and does not see a need to make the compiler 64 bit itself.
>
> The compiler already has been compilable as a 64-bit binary for months.  IMHO,
> though, Walter should release a 64-bit pre-compiled binary to make life easy for
> ppl with 64-bit installs.

Yes, I've been compiling dmd as a 64bit binary since I switched to a 64bit system, Snow Leopard.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg