dmd 2.064 release candidate 1 (page 4)

On 11/4/2013 2:47 PM, Rainer Schuetze wrote: > Thanks. The Visual D installation is missing from this installer. Obviously, > https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/23 has never been > merged. As I've just released a new version, it would be nice if it could link > to the new 0.3.37. There have been a blizzard of pulls done in the last couple weeks, and it isn't always clear to me which ones should go in 2.064. A note to me would be helpful with this. Also, is that pull enough, or are you suggesting it needs further modification?

On 11/4/13 5:20 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > On 11/4/2013 2:47 PM, Rainer Schuetze wrote: >> Thanks. The Visual D installation is missing from this installer. Obviously, >> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/23 has never been >> merged. As I've just released a new version, it would be nice if it could link >> to the new 0.3.37. > > There have been a blizzard of pulls done in the last couple weeks, and it isn't always clear to me > which ones should go in 2.064. A note to me would be helpful with this. > > Also, is that pull enough, or are you suggesting it needs further modification? Why use lossy emails? Submit pull requests against the branch (with a pointer in the request to the associated master pull to help confirm that it's already been merged there first). That way it'll both get tested appropriately and not lost in the shuffle.

On 2013-11-04 21:01, Walter Bright wrote: > The libraries were not built correctly (my old machine runs out of > memory building them). FreeBSD users have needed to, for some time now, > fork/build to get it. I don't understand, the binaries and Phobos are included in the zip (I haven't verified that they work). But dmd.conf is not. Can't you include dmd.conf just because your machine runs out of memory? > Heck, I had spent considerable time just trying to figure out *which* > virtual box to install. Each option came with a long list of caveats and > things that didn't work. Some would work with one OS, some with another, > the one I did download would kinda sorta work with NetBSD, but not > really, etc. Then, of course, was having it all wiped out by upgrading > Ubuntu. I'm not sure I understand what you're meaning. If I want to install Ubuntu, I just create a new virtual machine (using VirtualBox), download Ubuntu and makes a default installation. If I want Fedora, I do the same thing but I download and install Fedora instead. NetBSD? We don't even support NetBSD. For FreeBSD, just do the same thing, download FreeBSD. Actually, for FreeBSD I installed PC-BSD instead. That will include a GUI by default, making it basically just as easy to use as Ubuntu. The only thing that I had some trouble with is cross-compiling. That is, building 32bit on a 64bit machine. > It's not impossible to do. There's just a significant time sink involved > in figuring out which one to get, getting it installed, getting it > working, and keeping it working. It's actually easier to just buy > another machine. I'm not going to argue. If you have trouble picking which ISO image to download we can help you. What's taking the most time for me is download the ISO and wait for the installation. But I can do other things while waiting. -- /Jacob Carlborg

November 05, 2013

Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1

Posted by Walter Bright
in reply to Jacob Carlborg

Permalink

Walter Bright

Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg

Permalink

On 11/4/2013 11:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-11-04 21:01, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> The libraries were not built correctly (my old machine runs out of
>> memory building them). FreeBSD users have needed to, for some time now,
>> fork/build to get it.
>
> I don't understand, the binaries and Phobos are included in the zip

They aren't, actually. The 64 bit stuff isn't, and the 32 bit phobos is old.

> (I haven't
> verified that they work). But dmd.conf is not. Can't you include dmd.conf just
> because your machine runs out of memory?
>
>> Heck, I had spent considerable time just trying to figure out *which*
>> virtual box to install. Each option came with a long list of caveats and
>> things that didn't work. Some would work with one OS, some with another,
>> the one I did download would kinda sorta work with NetBSD, but not
>> really, etc. Then, of course, was having it all wiped out by upgrading
>> Ubuntu.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're meaning. If I want to install Ubuntu, I
> just create a new virtual machine (using VirtualBox), download Ubuntu and makes
> a default installation. If I want Fedora, I do the same thing but I download and
> install Fedora instead.
>
> NetBSD? We don't even support NetBSD.

The reason for that is I could never get NetBSD to run (either in a virtual box or on a spare machine).

> For FreeBSD, just do the same thing,
> download FreeBSD. Actually, for FreeBSD I installed PC-BSD instead. That will
> include a GUI by default, making it basically just as easy to use as Ubuntu.
>
> The only thing that I had some trouble with is cross-compiling. That is,
> building 32bit on a 64bit machine.
>
>> It's not impossible to do. There's just a significant time sink involved
>> in figuring out which one to get, getting it installed, getting it
>> working, and keeping it working. It's actually easier to just buy
>> another machine.
>
> I'm not going to argue. If you have trouble picking which ISO image to download
> we can help you.
>
> What's taking the most time for me is download the ISO and wait for the
> installation. But I can do other things while waiting.

Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds?

> Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? I have access to FreeBSD machine(s) and willing to lend a hand and spend some time on this. What is needed to do the FreeBSD package build? (Currently I just do a git clone/pull of the github dlang stuff and build it to get the master or any other branch I want) Were do I find the build and package instructions? Is running regressions tests required before releasing a build package? What is the packages release (and build) frequency? DMD1 and DMD2 (and GDC) seems to be in the FreeBSD ports collection. Why can't those be used to buid the packages?

On 2013-11-05 10:09, Walter Bright wrote: > They aren't, actually. The 64 bit stuff isn't, and the 32 bit phobos is > old. Ok, that's quite confusing. Isn't it better to _not_ include the 32bit files instead of including old ones. > The reason for that is I could never get NetBSD to run (either in a > virtual box or on a spare machine). Ok, I see. > Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? I'm quite busy, yes I know, we all are. -- /Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-11-05 10:09, Walter Bright wrote: > Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? Actually, I guess I could to a quick build tonight or tomorrow night and just send you the files. But as you have said, it would be better if the autotester could do that. -- /Jacob Carlborg

On 5 November 2013 09:35, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote: > On 11/4/2013 11:46 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> For the second time, the license on the readme.txt distributed with the >> sources >> is wrong? >> > > Which one in which directory and what should it be? > > There's only one file named readme.txt. ;-) See here for the latest file: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/blob/master/src/readme.txt -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

Forums