On 2013-06-03 02:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> I don't think that much of anyone around here
> thinks that the zip should contain all of the OSes.

DVM relies on DMD being packaged as a single zip. As long as that is kept, you can do whatever you want.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-06-03 04:33, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> I quoted all of the above because I so much agree with it. Packaging all
> OSs in a zip is really disingenuous and now it's come to a head. Let's
> fix this for 2.064.

DVM relies on DMD being packaged as a single zip. As long as that is kept, you can do whatever you want. There are probably other tools that relies on this as well.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-06-03 00:25, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> Yea, I'm working on a replacement.

Please keep the existing zip packages as well, we don't want to break DVM :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Monday, June 03, 2013 09:20:58 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-06-03 02:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > I don't think that much of anyone around here
> > thinks that the zip should contain all of the OSes.
> 
> DVM relies on DMD being packaged as a single zip. As long as that is kept, you can do whatever you want.

Except that that's _exactly_ what we want to get rid of. It's ridiculous to put them all in one zip. It just wastes bandwidth, and it doesn't work with symlinks, and now that we're adding shared libraries, we need the *nix packages to have symlinks in them.

I understand that DVM currently relies on there being a single zip, but aside from trying not to break DVM, I see zero reason to leave it as a single zip. It's just causing us problems.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 2013-06-03 09:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> Except that that's _exactly_ what we want to get rid of. It's ridiculous to
> put them all in one zip. It just wastes bandwidth, and it doesn't work with
> symlinks, and now that we're adding shared libraries, we need the *nix
> packages to have symlinks in them.
>
> I understand that DVM currently relies on there being a single zip, but aside
> from trying not to break DVM, I see zero reason to leave it as a single zip.
> It's just causing us problems.

If it was not clear, I would like to keep the cross-platform zip in addition to the platform specific zip/tarball/packages.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Monday, June 03, 2013 10:23:10 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-06-03 09:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Except that that's _exactly_ what we want to get rid of. It's ridiculous
> > to
> > put them all in one zip. It just wastes bandwidth, and it doesn't work
> > with
> > symlinks, and now that we're adding shared libraries, we need the *nix
> > packages to have symlinks in them.
> > 
> > I understand that DVM currently relies on there being a single zip, but aside from trying not to break DVM, I see zero reason to leave it as a single zip. It's just causing us problems.
> 
> If it was not clear, I would like to keep the cross-platform zip in addition to the platform specific zip/tarball/packages.

Well, part of the problem is that the zip is inherently broken for *nix systems due to the fact that symlinks don't work properly. So, now that we have an so version of Phobos, the zip just isn't going to work properly anymore. And while we aren't really looking to break DVM, AFAIK, there would be no other reason to keep the zip around other than for DVM. And since the zip isn't going to work properly on *nix systems anyway, I'm not sure that keeping it around for DVM really solves much.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 2013-06-03 10:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> Well, part of the problem is that the zip is inherently broken for *nix
> systems due to the fact that symlinks don't work properly. So, now that we
> have an so version of Phobos, the zip just isn't going to work properly
> anymore. And while we aren't really looking to break DVM, AFAIK, there would
> be no other reason to keep the zip around other than for DVM. And since the
> zip isn't going to work properly on *nix systems anyway, I'm not sure that
> keeping it around for DVM really solves much.

*nix is really not correct to say. Currently only Linux 64bit supports shared libraries. It's not like it's broken on all platforms, just one. Sure, it will break once we get support for share libraries on additional platforms.

If static linking is default nothing is broken.

Which format can we use for these platform specific packages? For which of these are there existing bindings or libraries?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 08:18 +0200, deadalnix wrote:
[…]
> > 	libphobos2.so.0.63 the file
> > 	libphobos2.so.0 a symbolic link to libphobos2.so.0.63
> > 	libphobos2.so a symbolic link to libphobos2.so.0
> 
> And symlink are created automagically by tooling.

For Debian the symlinks are create by the post-install script for a shared library. So yes by the tooling.

The moral of this story is that the current mechanisms for creating the DMD deb file are not compliant with the correct tool chain for creating debs. i.e. it is wrong.

There should be a Git repository holding the DMD deb meta data and then just use all the git-buildpackage stuff.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 12:19:49 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> ...

In most basic form there should be just set of instructions for packagers to conform post-install hook to. Especially when it comes to main repos and stuff is build from SVN/Git whenever it is possible. Providing .deb and .rpm may be convenient sometimes but is not the right way in general.

On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 17:50 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: […]
> 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

The use of a script like this is just totally the wrong way of building debs. I can create the debian directory to replace the script (*) but it requires the tarball of the release to be available. Is there a tarball or only this infamous zipfile?

(*) Not immediately but sometime in late August.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder