February 02, 2015 Re: Does D need standard locations? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dicebot | On 2 February 2015 at 17:44, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> My attitude to any such changes in general is "I don't care as long as I can easily override it with own patches before packaging gdc".
>
> In practice distro are simply too different to try fitting everything into single pattern. In Arch Linux it is prohibited to package source-only libraries and thus dub is pretty much a necessity. At the same time being a bleeding edge distro it doesn't care for simultaneous support of many compiler versions at once and all that infrastructure can be dropped to keep things KISS.
>
> So, please, whatever you do, keep it easy for packager to override all paths :)
It's now a one-line change to stick it where-ever you want. Couldn't be easier. :)
Iain.
|
February 02, 2015 Re: Does D need standard locations? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Iain Buclaw | On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 17:49:07 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> So, please, whatever you do, keep it easy for packager to override all paths
>> :)
>
> It's now a one-line change to stick it where-ever you want. Couldn't
> be easier. :)
>
> Iain.
Yay, thanks! ^_^
|
February 02, 2015 Re: Does D need standard locations? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dicebot | On 2 February 2015 at 17:52, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 17:49:07 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>
>>> So, please, whatever you do, keep it easy for packager to override all
>>> paths
>>> :)
>>
>>
>> It's now a one-line change to stick it where-ever you want. Couldn't be easier. :)
>>
>> Iain.
>
>
> Yay, thanks! ^_^
Correction, two line change. I momentarily forgot about the compiler Make-lang.in :)
|
February 02, 2015 Re: Does D need standard locations? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Iain Buclaw | On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 17:59:43 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > Correction, two line change. I momentarily forgot about the compiler > Make-lang.in :) Will those be roughly the same lines as I tweak in https://github.com/Dicebot/Arch-PKGBUILDs/blob/master/gdc/folders.diff right now? |
February 03, 2015 Re: Does D need standard locations? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dicebot | On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 17:44:53 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> In Arch Linux it is prohibited to package source-only libraries
How do they handle boost?
|
February 03, 2015 Re: Does D need standard locations? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Joseph Rushton Wakeling | On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 11:51:31 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 17:44:53 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> In Arch Linux it is prohibited to package source-only libraries
>
> How do they handle boost?
Boost does provide prebuild static libraries, despite being
template-heavy - thus it still fits allowed "library + bindings"
model. It is not very suitable for D though.
On a related topic, @Iain, does using static libraries still
prevent inlining in gdc?
|
February 03, 2015 Re: Does D need standard locations? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Iain Buclaw | On 2015-02-01 19:58, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Hi, > > Next list of things that need sorting out™ in GDC is how the compiler > works out where module interfaces are installed vs. where the library > actually installed them - this is tricky when taking into > consideration: I don't know if this matters but eventually I would like to add support for GDC in DVM. Installing multiple versions of DMD in any directory I want is very easy since DMD has a self contained zip and dmd.conf. Placing files all over the system sounds like it will make adding support in DVM harder. -- /Jacob Carlborg |
February 03, 2015 Re: Does D need standard locations? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jacob Carlborg Attachments: | On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 20:46:55 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-02-01 19:58, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Next list of things that need sorting outâ„¢ in GDC is how the compiler
>> works out where module interfaces are installed vs. where the library
>> actually installed them - this is tricky when taking into
>> consideration:
>
> I don't know if this matters but eventually I would like to add support for GDC in DVM. Installing multiple versions of DMD in any directory I want is very easy since DMD has a self contained zip and dmd.conf.
>
> Placing files all over the system sounds like it will make adding support in DVM harder.
adding support for "-nostdinc" and "-isystem" to gdc should allow replacing pathes. or maybe it already supports that, i don't know...
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation