I'm a clueless newbie who just tried to download D from digitalmars.
I got 2 zips, dmc.zip & dmd.zip.
The first expanded to a folder named 'dm' & I moved it to my Programs folder.
The second expanded to 2 folders, one named 'dmd', and the other named AGAIN,
'dm', but much smaller than the original 'dm' folder.
I can't move it to my Programs folder, since it'll overwrite the 'dm' already
there.
Was Gibt?

Harvey

hsfrey wrote:
> I'm a clueless newbie who just tried to download D from digitalmars.
> I got 2 zips, dmc.zip & dmd.zip.
> The first expanded to a folder named 'dm' & I moved it to my Programs folder.
> The second expanded to 2 folders, one named 'dmd', and the other named AGAIN,
> 'dm', but much smaller than the original 'dm' folder.
> I can't move it to my Programs folder, since it'll overwrite the 'dm' already
> there.
> Was Gibt?
> 
> Harvey

Two things.

First, you'll probably be better off putting them at the root rather than the Programs folder.  (Mostly the linker's fault.  Might be resolvable, but I've never bothered trying.  Works well from C:\ so I let it be.)

Second, the 'dm' from dmd.zip is actually /meant/ to overwrite the first one.  :)  So let it.  Seems unintuitive, I know... but the data from dmd.zip is the actual D compiler, while that from dmc.zip is the backend, which happens to also be the backend to DMC (DigitalMars C/C++ Compiler).

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

It would be much easier if a suitable *.msi package was available for Win. It seems easy to generate one.  That's one easy way to increase professional image of the project.

Same thing with Linux, an RPM would make it much easier to put things into right places.  At the very least, the tarball should allow to do make install.



== Quote from Chris Nicholson-Sauls (ibisbasenji@gmail.com)'s article
> hsfrey wrote:
> > I'm a clueless newbie who just tried to download D from digitalmars.
> > I got 2 zips, dmc.zip & dmd.zip.
> > The first expanded to a folder named 'dm' & I moved it to my Programs folder.
> > The second expanded to 2 folders, one named 'dmd', and the other named AGAIN,
> > 'dm', but much smaller than the original 'dm' folder.
> > I can't move it to my Programs folder, since it'll overwrite the 'dm' already
> > there.
> > Was Gibt?
> >
> > Harvey
> Two things.
> First, you'll probably be better off putting them at the root rather than the
Programs
> folder.  (Mostly the linker's fault.  Might be resolvable, but I've never
bothered trying.
>   Works well from C:\ so I let it be.)
> Second, the 'dm' from dmd.zip is actually /meant/ to overwrite the first one.
:)  So let
> it.  Seems unintuitive, I know... but the data from dmd.zip is the actual D
compiler,
> while that from dmc.zip is the backend, which happens to also be the backend to DMC
> (DigitalMars C/C++ Compiler).
> -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

Waldemar wrote:

> It would be much easier if a suitable *.msi package was available for Win. It
> seems easy to generate one.  That's one easy way to increase professional image of
> the project.

The installer can also set up the path automatically, which
avoids another step in the DMC/DMD installation process...

> Same thing with Linux, an RPM would make it much easier to put things into right
> places.  At the very least, the tarball should allow to do make install.

I have a dmd.nsi (for EXE) and dmd.spec (for RPM), that I will
update and donate to DigitalMars once DMD 1.0 has been released.

--anders

Waldemar wrote:
> It would be much easier if a suitable *.msi package was available for Win. It
> seems easy to generate one.  That's one easy way to increase professional image of
> the project.
> 
There's nothing difficult about unzipping a zip archive to the C:. The lack of an installer is refreshing, actually. Setting up the path is a one-off thing that need not be repeated. There's utterly no need for an installer.

Mike Parker wrote:

> There's nothing difficult about unzipping a zip archive to the C:. The lack of an installer is refreshing, actually. Setting up the path is a one-off thing that need not be repeated. There's utterly no need for an installer.

Why not have both ? That's what we do for GDC.
(one binary zip/tarball, one installer/package)

--anders

Mike Parker wrote:
> Waldemar wrote:
> 
>> It would be much easier if a suitable *.msi package was available for Win. It
>> seems easy to generate one.  That's one easy way to increase professional image of
>> the project.
>>
> There's nothing difficult about unzipping a zip archive to the C:. The lack of an installer is refreshing, actually. Setting up the path is a one-off thing that need not be repeated. There's utterly no need for an installer.

I totaly agree, but some people like a more "hand holding approch" to things.

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 02:39:31 +0900, Mike Parker wrote:

> Waldemar wrote:
>> It would be much easier if a suitable *.msi package was available for Win. It seems easy to generate one.  That's one easy way to increase professional image of the project.
>> 
> There's nothing difficult about unzipping a zip archive to the C:. The lack of an installer is refreshing, actually. Setting up the path is a one-off thing that need not be repeated. There's utterly no need for an installer.

There's no need for a compiler either, just use assembler!

Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:

<snip>
> Second, the 'dm' from dmd.zip is actually /meant/ to overwrite the first one.  :)

The dm folder on your hard disk is supposed to contain files from both dmc.zip and dmd.zip.  Using WinZip, probably other unzippers as well, all you need to do is extract both zips to the same place, effectively merging them.

Stewart.