On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:24:47 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
> > 
> > Regardless, the symlink issue alone shows that using the zip file format for *nix is a mistake. Any packages released for *nix needs to support symlinks correctly.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> Is it so hard to convert the zip to tarball in the installer scripts?
> 
> (hint: no)

But unless the zip itself is fixed, then anyone downloading it is going to end up with a screwed up *nix setup unless they fix it themselves. It would be far better to just fix the zip.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:20:37 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> what distro are those linux tests performed on?

I don't know. You'd probably have to ask Brad Roberts.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:20:37 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>> what distro are those linux tests performed on?
>
> I don't know. You'd probably have to ask Brad Roberts.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>

just asking because the rpm script in installer is set up to only run on debian.

On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:39:50 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:20:37 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> >> what distro are those linux tests performed on?
> > 
> > I don't know. You'd probably have to ask Brad Roberts.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> just asking because the rpm script in installer is set up to only run on debian.

My guess would be Ubuntu, but I really have no idea.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:24:47 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>> On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> Regardless, the symlink issue alone shows that using the zip file format
>>> for *nix is a mistake. Any packages released for *nix needs to support
>>> symlinks correctly.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>> Is it so hard to convert the zip to tarball in the installer scripts?
>>
>> (hint: no)
>
> But unless the zip itself is fixed, then anyone downloading it is going to end
> up with a screwed up *nix setup unless they fix it themselves. It would be far
> better to just fix the zip.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>

wouldn't they have a screwed up setup with a tarball as well? They'd still need to fix $PATH and whatever you need to fix to make -lphobos2 work.

On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:43:20 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:24:47 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Regardless, the symlink issue alone shows that using the zip file format for *nix is a mistake. Any packages released for *nix needs to support symlinks correctly.
> >>> 
> >>> - Jonathan M Davis
> >> 
> >> Is it so hard to convert the zip to tarball in the installer scripts?
> >> 
> >> (hint: no)
> > 
> > But unless the zip itself is fixed, then anyone downloading it is going to end up with a screwed up *nix setup unless they fix it themselves. It would be far better to just fix the zip.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> wouldn't they have a screwed up setup with a tarball as well? They'd
> still need to fix $PATH and whatever you need to fix to make -lphobos2 work.

All you should have to do is set the PATH so that it has dmd in it. Everything else should just work.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 6/2/2013 5:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/2/2013 4:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:50:00 Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> It already is broken up per OS:
>>>>      http://dlang.org/download.html
>>>
>>> But the _zip_ file isn't. We keep asking for _that_ to be broken up.
>>
>> There's no reason to, as broken up ones are available for each system.
>
> Except that those are rpms and debs and whatnot which are different. I'm far
> from the first to bring this up. It has been brought up repeatedly for quite
> some time that folks don't want the zip to contain everything. They want to
> get the zip (or tarball) for their specific OS and that's it.

That's what the rpms and debs are for.


> Using an rpm and deb is fundamentally different,

The complaint from Russel was about the .deb file.

In any case, anyone is free to create a script to build whatever combination they want, in any format they want, and submit it as a pull request to installer. Nobody has to wait on me to do it.

  https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer

On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:50:46 Walter Bright wrote:
> In any case, anyone is free to create a script to build whatever combination they want, in any format they want, and submit it as a pull request to installer. Nobody has to wait on me to do it.
> 
>    https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer

I believe that that's what Nick is working on (and I think that he's probably the number one complainer about this issue).

- Jonathan M Davis

On 06/02/2013 05:47 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:43:20 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>> On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:24:47 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>>>> On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless, the symlink issue alone shows that using the zip file format
>>>>> for *nix is a mistake. Any packages released for *nix needs to support
>>>>> symlinks correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>>>
>>>> Is it so hard to convert the zip to tarball in the installer scripts?
>>>>
>>>> (hint: no)
>>>
>>> But unless the zip itself is fixed, then anyone downloading it is going to
>>> end up with a screwed up *nix setup unless they fix it themselves. It
>>> would be far better to just fix the zip.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>> wouldn't they have a screwed up setup with a tarball as well? They'd
>> still need to fix $PATH and whatever you need to fix to make -lphobos2 work.
>
> All you should have to do is set the PATH so that it has dmd in it. Everything
> else should just work.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>

Okay, so I unzip to /home/ellery/Downloads/dmd2, add ~/Downloads/dmd2/linux/bin64 to PATH, and try to build a shared library. At runtime, it gives me

./test1.x: error while loading shared libraries: libphobos2.so.0.63: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

And I don't even remember how to fix this. You have to muck around with ldconfig, which requires root, or something. Maybe there is a way to make the compiler point the shared lib dependency to /home/ellery/Downloads/linux/lib64/libphobos2.so ? But yuck.

On Sunday, June 02, 2013 18:12:06 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> On 06/02/2013 05:47 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:43:20 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:24:47 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> >>>> On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Regardless, the symlink issue alone shows that using the zip file
> >>>>> format
> >>>>> for *nix is a mistake. Any packages released for *nix needs to support
> >>>>> symlinks correctly.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> - Jonathan M Davis
> >>>> 
> >>>> Is it so hard to convert the zip to tarball in the installer scripts?
> >>>> 
> >>>> (hint: no)
> >>> 
> >>> But unless the zip itself is fixed, then anyone downloading it is going
> >>> to
> >>> end up with a screwed up *nix setup unless they fix it themselves. It
> >>> would be far better to just fix the zip.
> >>> 
> >>> - Jonathan M Davis
> >> 
> >> wouldn't they have a screwed up setup with a tarball as well? They'd still need to fix $PATH and whatever you need to fix to make -lphobos2 work.>
> > All you should have to do is set the PATH so that it has dmd in it. Everything else should just work.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> Okay, so I unzip to /home/ellery/Downloads/dmd2, add ~/Downloads/dmd2/linux/bin64 to PATH, and try to build a shared library. At runtime, it gives me
> 
> ./test1.x: error while loading shared libraries: libphobos2.so.0.63: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
> 
> And I don't even remember how to fix this. You have to muck around with ldconfig, which requires root, or something. Maybe there is a way to make the compiler point the shared lib dependency to /home/ellery/Downloads/linux/lib64/libphobos2.so ? But yuck.

I don't believe that it's not an ldconfig problem. It's the fact that there's a libphobos2.so and not a libphobos2.so.0.63. It's the exact same problem that the rpm and deb files are having. dmd.conf already makes it so that the linker looks in the right place.

- Jonathan M Davis