On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:11:13 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:08:41 UTC, BoQsc wrote:
>> Can someone explain, why we still do not have apt repository for D compiler?
>
> Doesn't this do what you need?
> https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/

I'd prefer having D language compiler included into next releases of Linux distributions.
I'm worried that https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/ repository's package nor D language compiler's license is compatible to be included and even preinstalled in Distributions such as Ubuntu.



> That certainly works for me. Though I use the ldc2 compiler which is in the standard Debian archive.


ldc compiler is a way different bundle, it does not contain RDMD nor DUB?

On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:56:33 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:42:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:11 +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:08:41 UTC, BoQsc wrote:
>>> > Can someone explain, why we still do not have apt repository for D compiler?
>>> 
>>> Doesn't this do what you need? https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/
>>
>> That certainly works for me. Though I use the ldc2 compiler which is in the standard Debian archive.
>
> And as a snap package, which I think is updated more quickly.

How does that work? I don't use linux very often, but whenever I do I feel like apt gives me a really old version of ldc and just install it manually.

On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 18:32:03 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:56:33 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:42:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:11 +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:08:41 UTC, BoQsc wrote:
>>>> > Can someone explain, why we still do not have apt repository for D compiler?
>>>> 
>>>> Doesn't this do what you need? https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/
>>>
>>> That certainly works for me. Though I use the ldc2 compiler which is in the standard Debian archive.
>>
>> And as a snap package, which I think is updated more quickly.
>
> How does that work? I don't use linux very often, but whenever I do I feel like apt gives me a really old version of ldc and just install it manually.

I believe the command is

sudo snap install ldc2 --classic

on Ubuntu. snap should be installed as part of the standard installation.

On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 18:32 +0000, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 
[…]
> How does that work? I don't use linux very often, but whenever I do I feel like apt gives me a really old version of ldc and just install it manually.

It depends on which Linux distribution you use. Using apt implies an Debian or Ubuntu (or Mint?) distribution but aptitude is far better than apt for package management.

ldc2 is currently 1.12.0 on Debian Sid.

How quickly the ldc package gets updated depends on the volunteers doing the
work:
Debian D Language Group <team+d-team@tracker.debian.org>

These volunteers need recognition and everyone's support.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:58 +0000, BoQsc via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 
[…]
> I'd prefer having D language compiler included into next releases
> of Linux distributions.
> I'm worried that https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/ repository's
> package nor D language compiler's license is compatible to be
> included and even preinstalled in Distributions such as Ubuntu.

Clearly it would be better if dmd, dcd, dfmt, dfix, dscanner, dub etc. were all in the standard Debian repository along with ldc, gdc, gtkd, gstreamerd, tilix, etc.

Now that DMD licence has changed, it is almost certainly eligible to be in the Debian repository. Then D-Apt could retire.

It is all down to someone volunteering to do the work. The people on the Debian D Language Group <team+d-team@tracker.debian.org> will have to do the final upload, but that doesn't stop others preparing the ground for them.

Without volunteers doing stuff, nothing in Debian changes.

[…]
> ldc compiler is a way different bundle, it does not contain RDMD nor DUB?

True, but it is already in the Debian repository suitable for installation.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Saturday, 10 August 2019 at 08:32:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:58 +0000, BoQsc via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> 
> […]
>> I'd prefer having D language compiler included into next releases
>> of Linux distributions.
>> I'm worried that https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/ repository's
>> package nor D language compiler's license is compatible to be
>> included and even preinstalled in Distributions such as Ubuntu.
>
> Clearly it would be better if dmd, dcd, dfmt, dfix, dscanner, dub etc. were all in the standard Debian repository along with ldc, gdc, gtkd, gstreamerd, tilix, etc.
>
> Now that DMD licence has changed, it is almost certainly eligible to be in the Debian repository. Then D-Apt could retire.
>
> It is all down to someone volunteering to do the work. The people on the Debian D Language Group <team+d-team@tracker.debian.org> will have to do the final upload, but that doesn't stop others preparing the ground for them.
>
> Without volunteers doing stuff, nothing in Debian changes.
>
> […]
>> ldc compiler is a way different bundle, it does not contain RDMD nor DUB?
>
> True, but it is already in the Debian repository suitable for installation.

With a recent addition to Dub you can just call "dub -run dscanner" and it will be retrieved/compiled/started.
Of course adding a command "dub install" which makes the applications available in PATH would be the deluxe solution.

What I want to say, I see no benefit to add dub packages like dscanner, dfmt, ... to OS package repositories if they can be easily installed with dub.

Kind regards
Andre

On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 09:32 +0000, Andre Pany via Digitalmars-d wrote: […]
> 
> With a recent addition to Dub you can just call "dub -run
> dscanner" and it will be retrieved/compiled/started.
> Of course adding a command "dub install" which makes the
> applications available in PATH would be the deluxe solution.
> 
> What I want to say, I see no benefit to add dub packages like dscanner, dfmt, ... to OS package repositories if they can be easily installed with dub.

Nothing wrong with choosing not to OS packages for these things, but not having the choice is a problem. Manual installation mean manual updating, package-based installation means automated updating. Also package-based installation guarantees the tools will work with the other packages for the OS, manual installation does not make this promise.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Saturday, 10 August 2019 at 09:32:02 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 August 2019 at 08:32:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> [...]
>
> With a recent addition to Dub you can just call "dub -run dscanner" and it will be retrieved/compiled/started.
> Of course adding a command "dub install" which makes the applications available in PATH would be the deluxe solution.


For future readers: it's just "dub run dscanner".

On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 17:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found this:
>
> http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/
>
> Should we make it part of the official distribution?
>
>
> Andrei


The future of Linux app distribution is either Flatpak (https://flatpak.org/) or Snap (https://snapcraft.io/). Among which Flatpak is technically more powerful/promising.

I'm sure there'll be more on this during the upcoming Linux App Summit (https://linuxappsummit.org/)

On Saturday, 10 August 2019 at 21:02:44 UTC, aberba wrote:
> The future of Linux app distribution is either Flatpak (https://flatpak.org/) or Snap (https://snapcraft.io/). Among which Flatpak is technically more powerful/promising.

The last time I looked, Flatpak was still much more tied to desktop usage, whereas snap has since its first iterations given first class support for device and server use-cases. So for a compiler, I think snap may be a superior option.

For example, I currently use the snap packages to install D compilers in CI. I'm not aware of anyone doing anything comparable with Flatpak. In fact if you look at developer tools on Flathub they appear to all be desktop apps — not a single compiler among them:
https://flathub.org/apps/category/Development

By the way, it doesn't have to be either-or. The two package ecosystems can co-exist on the same machine. But I'm not aware of _any_ flatpaks for compilers, whereas there are multiple snap packages providing compilers for multiple different languages.