On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 12:23:21 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 15:54 +0100, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> […]
>> 
>> Btw, I forgot to tell you... I talked to fedora people about having dmd in Fedora. They said it will probably be rejected because of the backend license, because they are not allowed to freely distribute the software. So I guess we will most likely have to setup our own YUM repository on dlang.org - that is probably the best course of action. If someone has better idea, please share it.
>
> RPM Fusion seems to be the place for RPMs that cannot be part of the
> Fedora distribution.

Russel, I am aware of that, but RPM Fusion is an unofficial (although admittedly often used) repository. If RPMFusion is our only choice I would rather use RPM directly from www.dlang.org .

On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 15:32 +0000, Dejan Lekic wrote:
[…]
> Russel, I am aware of that, but RPM Fusion is an unofficial (although admittedly often used) repository. If RPMFusion is our only choice I would rather use RPM directly from www.dlang.org .

Can't we do both?

For myself, I am not really wanting to explicitly download RPMs and put them in my own local RPM store, though I do do this, I'd prefer them to appear (magically :-). I already have RPM Fusion in my Yum search list – Nvidia put all their non-free things in there, ditto AMD.

The alternative is to set up an RPM database of all the D things as there is for Debian debs. Then people can just add the repository and Yum does the rest.

-- 
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, 9 December 2013 at 14:54:29 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 December 2013 at 11:46:37 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> On 11/19/2013 02:11 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>>> Hello everybody.
>>>
>>> I have just committed few changes to https://www.gitorious.org/dejan-
>>> fedora that allow you to build functional RPMs on your Fedora 19 systems.
>>> I will aim for now to support F19, F20, EL5 and EL6. If someone needs
>>> support for something else, please send patches or just simply come to IRC
>>> and let me know what is the problem. :)
>>
>> Great, will you take the honour to submit this to Fedora?
>>>
>>> Few remarks - SPEC file expects source files to be on http://ddn.so/
>>> files/ . I hope our release manager, or so-called "build master" will
>>> make sure dlang.org provides source tarballs of dmd, phobos, druntime and
>>> tools the same or similar way I have them on http://ddn.so/files/ (btw,
>>> you can't browse it yet, but you can download files).
>>>
>>> I use the simple get-files.sh (located in the dmd directory in the dejan-
>>> fedora repo) to get those release tarballs from GitHub.
>>>
>>> Finally, I decided to be little bit adventurous and made the SPEC file
>>> generate dmd.conf with -defaultlib=libphobos2.so flag in DFLAGS.
>>>
>> It would be better to stick to the current dlang state.
>>
>>> Following Fedora package guidelines, I provide static library in the
>>> libphobos-static package instead.
>>>
>> Splitting in different packages is needed to comply with RPM guidelines, but it's a bad fit for a single binary installer on dlang.org.
>> I'm working on a spec file for the latter.
>> https://github.com/dawgfoto/installer/tree/fedoraSPEC
>
> Btw, I forgot to tell you... I talked to fedora people about having dmd in Fedora. They said it will probably be rejected because of the backend license, because they are not allowed to freely distribute the software. So I guess we will most likely have to setup our own YUM repository on dlang.org - that is probably the best course of action. If someone has better idea, please share it.

When I got dmd into FreeBSD ports a couple years back, I asked Walter for permission for them to redistribute the compiler and backend source and he gave it.  If the Fedora guys are okay with that arrangement, I'm guessing Walter will give his permission again.

On Thursday, 5 December 2013 at 11:46:37 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Splitting in different packages is needed to comply with RPM guidelines, but it's a bad fit for a single binary installer on dlang.org.
> I'm working on a spec file for the latter.
> https://github.com/dawgfoto/installer/tree/fedoraSPEC

It is not a requirement for no reason. You do not want to force users of your D application to install a D compiler, runtime source, etc, on every client machine, do you? Instead you would probably install just the runtime itself as a package.

I have followed your recommendation regarding GitHub - now there is no need to host source packages elsewhere. Thanks for that.