On 09/13/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> 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.

s/So I\'ll just write one using Phobos\' std.zip/So I\'ll just use zip on Linux and call it a day/

Waste of time doesn't begin to describe this.


Andrei

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:11:30 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> On 09/13/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> 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.
>
> s/So I\'ll just write one using Phobos\' std.zip/So I\'ll just use zip on Linux and call it a day/

Better yet, have downloads for the different OSes.  Downloading all executables/compiled libs for all platforms when I'm interested in one makes no sense.  The current zipfile is at 10MB, if I trim out all but my OS, it is down to 5MB.

I assume you are not building all the compiled binaries and libs on a cross-compiler, so at this point, you have to go to each OS *anyways*.  Then make the OSX and Linux ones tarballs.

Finally, the files that are extracted should be under a directory named for the compiler version.  For example, if I extract dmd.2.048.zip, it should extract into a dmd2.048 directory, not dmd2.

-Steve

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org)'s article
> On 09/13/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > 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.
> s/So I\'ll just write one using Phobos\' std.zip/So I\'ll just use zip
> on Linux and call it a day/
> Waste of time doesn't begin to describe this.
> Andrei

Well, some people (like me) just plain prefer Windows over Linux.  That said, there's always Cygwin.  I love the command line environment of Unix-like OS's, but prefer certain things about Windows like having stable ABIs for the basic OS facilities (meaning that I can just download and unpack a binary and it **consistently** just works across all modern Windows machines) and having hardware support that doesn't suck horribly.  Cygwin lets me have it both ways. Also, Cygwin's zip is probably compiled from the same source as any Linux distro's, and should probably do what you need.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> On 09/13/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> s/So I\'ll just write one using Phobos\' std.zip/So I\'ll just use zip on Linux and call it a day/
> 
> Waste of time doesn't begin to describe this.

Well, it does begin the description, but it's no where near the full, sad, story.

Can't you use your archiver to do that for you? F2, rename, extract. Done deal. I like to keep the latest version in the DMD2 folder, all the better for compatibility with existing build scripts. I really wouldn't want to have to keep renaming paths in makefiles for every release of DMD2. Although I'll never have that problem since I can rename the folder inside the zip.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Finally, the files that are extracted should be under a directory named for the compiler version.  For example, if I extract dmd.2.048.zip, it should extract into a dmd2.048 directory, not dmd2.
>
> -Steve
>

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:44:57 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can't you use your archiver to do that for you? F2, rename, extract.
> Done deal. I like to keep the latest version in the DMD2 folder, all
> the better for compatibility with existing build scripts. I really
> wouldn't want to have to keep renaming paths in makefiles for every
> release of DMD2. Although I'll never have that problem since I can
> rename the folder inside the zip.

I don't use an "archiver", I just unzip.  Then I have to rename.  I typically keep all versions I've extracted intact so I can test older versions against code.

I can see why that's not advantageous to simple users.  However, it's pretty standard to have source archives extract to a version-specific directory, and there's a lot of source code in the archive.  For one thing, you don't want to extract over the old one, since files that may be deleted in the new archive would not be removed by extracting.

The best way to handle installation for your purposes is to use an installer.  That will remove older files and install newer ones.

BTW, this is a non-issue on non-windows systems, because you have the universally accepted symlink method of pointing at a different version.

-Steve

On 09/13/2010 04:44 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Can't you use your archiver to do that for you? F2, rename, extract.
> Done deal. I like to keep the latest version in the DMD2 folder, all
> the better for compatibility with existing build scripts. I really
> wouldn't want to have to keep renaming paths in makefiles for every
> release of DMD2. Although I'll never have that problem since I can
> rename the folder inside the zip.

What they often do is install the product with the full version in the directory name, and then write a link to the latest. So you'd have dmd2.048/ and then dmd2 a link to it.

Andrei

On 09/13/2010 04:28 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org)'s article
>> On 09/13/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> 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.
>> s/So I\'ll just write one using Phobos\' std.zip/So I\'ll just use zip
>> on Linux and call it a day/
>> Waste of time doesn't begin to describe this.
>> Andrei
>
> Well, some people (like me) just plain prefer Windows over Linux.  That said,
> there's always Cygwin.  I love the command line environment of Unix-like OS's, but
> prefer certain things about Windows like having stable ABIs for the basic OS
> facilities (meaning that I can just download and unpack a binary and it
> **consistently** just works across all modern Windows machines) and having
> hardware support that doesn't suck horribly.  Cygwin lets me have it both ways.
> Also, Cygwin's zip is probably compiled from the same source as any Linux
> distro's, and should probably do what you need.

There's nothing wrong about preferring Windows over Linux. I'm just saying (much like you) that badly reinventing Unix tools under Windows is not quite productive.

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> There's nothing wrong about preferring Windows over Linux. I'm just saying (much like you) that badly reinventing Unix tools under Windows is not quite productive.

The unix version of zip has no option to set the file attributes either.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/getgnuwin32/files/ (it extracts some files and download & install scripts).

The download takes a while though. There's some 400 packages in there, or about ~1000 executables in my GNUWin32/bin folder. Crazy. :p

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
> On 09/13/2010 04:28 PM, dsimcha wrote:
>>
>> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org)'s
>> article
>>>
>>> On 09/13/2010 12:32 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> s/So I\'ll just write one using Phobos\' std.zip/So I\'ll just use zip
>>> on Linux and call it a day/
>>> Waste of time doesn't begin to describe this.
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Well, some people (like me) just plain prefer Windows over Linux.  That
>> said,
>> there's always Cygwin.  I love the command line environment of Unix-like
>> OS's, but
>> prefer certain things about Windows like having stable ABIs for the basic
>> OS
>> facilities (meaning that I can just download and unpack a binary and it
>> **consistently** just works across all modern Windows machines) and having
>> hardware support that doesn't suck horribly.  Cygwin lets me have it both
>> ways.
>> Also, Cygwin's zip is probably compiled from the same source as any Linux
>> distro's, and should probably do what you need.
>
> There's nothing wrong about preferring Windows over Linux. I'm just saying (much like you) that badly reinventing Unix tools under Windows is not quite productive.
>
> Andrei
>