dmd 2.064 release candidate 1 (page 2)

On 2013-11-04 11:58, Walter Bright wrote: > They'll be dropped from the zip file. I don't have the equipment to > build them at the moment. Will FreeBSD be dropped? We never have had 64bit binaries but the 32bit? Can't you just setup a virtual machine? -- /Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-11-04 11:52, Walter Bright wrote: > There now. Thanks. > They don't, but they've followed this pattern since they were originally > created by Jordi, and I've left it as is. Too bad. I guess you don't want to change that? -- /Jacob Carlborg

On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 10:53:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: >> and dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz are missing. > > Seems to no longer be in 2.064. The installer builder was changed. I have asked Jordi to remove those some time ago to avoid confusion with official Arch packages as matching build script was very obsolete and did not conform packaging guidelines. If having an easily available beta/rc package is desired, it can be trivially added to AUR.

November 04, 2013

Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1

Posted by Leandro Lucarella
in reply to eles

Permalink

Leandro Lucarella

Posted in reply to eles

Permalink

eles, el  4 de November a las 09:37 me escribiste:
> On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 08:35:26 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >On 2013-11-04 09:03, Walter Bright wrote:
> >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz
> 
> Another 5 months waiting? http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11365

Is sad, but it makes sense, this is a new "feature" that wasn't even merged or properly tested yet, so it shouldn't be included at a beta stage. Let's just hope next release won't take that long.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1995 a Japanese trawler sank, because a Russian
cargo plane dropped a living cow from 30,000 feet

Walter Bright, el 4 de November a las 02:57 me escribiste: > On 11/4/2013 12:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > >You might want to name the release candidates properly and uniquely, just as you started to do with the betas. > > It'll follow the 2.063 pattern. You mean after this release it will be named 2.064.1, etc? Then don't call it a release candidate, is confusing. If is really an rc (which since you don't want to make an official announcement yet, I guess it is), please do what you did with the betas. All the same reasons to name the betas uniquely apply to release candidates. Just change beta1 with rc1 and make everybody happy. Is just one more little step! :) Please, please, please, never, ever overwrite released packages (betas and rc included) with a new one. You should consider them read-only after you create and publish them. Then be consistent with how you announce the releases (beta, rc, final) and the version numbers you are using. Thanks! -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEÑOR BIELSA: CON TODO RESPETO ¿USTED LO VE JUGAR A RIQUELME? -- Crónica TV

On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 13:09:10 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > eles, el 4 de November a las 09:37 me escribiste: >> On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 08:35:26 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: >> >On 2013-11-04 09:03, Walter Bright wrote: > Is sad Yes >, but it makes sense, this is a new "feature" that wasn't > even > merged or properly tested yet Just to note that this looks quite promising: http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/pull-history.ghtml?projectid=1&repoid=1&pullid=2700 (True, tests are not designed for this kind of change...) > , so it shouldn't be included at a beta > stage. Let's just hope next release won't take that long. Well, I hope. Also for various other compilers using the fronted, smaller gap between releases would make their maintainers' lives easier. A 2-month gap between releases?

On 11/4/2013 4:17 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2013-11-04 11:58, Walter Bright wrote: > >> They'll be dropped from the zip file. I don't have the equipment to >> build them at the moment. > > Will FreeBSD be dropped? Absolutely not. We just don't have a download package for it (this is not a new development). > We never have had 64bit binaries but the 32bit? Can't > you just setup a virtual machine? I've had a virtual machine setup at one point, but those things require significant time to set up and to keep them from breaking (my virtual machine setups all broke when I upgraded Ubuntu). What I'd like is someone to become the "build master" who will get Brad's autotester to automatically and routinely build each platform install package. This will also have the effect of better dealing with the constant breakage of the scripts that build those packages.

On 11/4/2013 4:19 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2013-11-04 11:52, Walter Bright wrote: >> They don't, but they've followed this pattern since they were originally >> created by Jordi, and I've left it as is. > > Too bad. I guess you don't want to change that? I don't like breaking my scripts and other peoples' scripts. It's annoying that they don't follow a proper pattern, but is not a big deal. If someone wants to step up and take the mantle of Build Master, he'd be in charge of things like that.

On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 08:03:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip [...] > dmd -m64 xx.d says: Can't run '\bin\link.exe', check PATH Was that supposed to work? (as there are files in lib64 I thought it was ready) 32 bit is OK.

Forums