> > would it be possible to link to appropriate github repo changesets using > git submodule, and then generate the tarballs from those? >
There is a way to actually use GitHub straight, but the directory names contain SHA1 hashes then, and I would have to store hashes of all 4 projects. Honestly, too much work for me. The way it works now is just not human friendly. They could really generate {dmd|phobos|druntime| tools}-2.064.2.tar.gz files, not v2.064.2.tar.gz ... But hey, I can't change the way GitHub works! > by gum, I think you did it right too. I can build a shared lib straight > out of the box. Well, unittests seem not to be running, and I'm sure > they were a release or two ago. we'll see. I did not check unittests to be honest, will do that later. > > A few suggestions: > > /usr/share/d/samples is in dmd-...-{architecture???}, shouldn't they be > in a noarch package, like libphobos-devel? Good catch, I will do that! > > shouldn't dmd require libphobos-devel rather than libphobos? Safest is to install all of them for now. :) I will polish those dependencies in time. > > libphobos installs libphobos.so.2.064; shouldn't it have also installed > libphobos2.so.2.064.2, cuz you know, this is dmd 2.064.2, and also most > libs in my /usr/lib seem to follow the format libname.so.x.y.z I am puzzled by the soname libphobos generates anyway (read my SPEC comment about it). Libphobos makefile creates ... I would rather see libphobos.so.2.064.2 instead. If someone wants to install DMD 1, then we would have something like libphobos.so.1.073.1, and libphobos.so.1 link to it... I can surely make a libphobos2.so.2.064.2 symbolic link to libphobos2.so.0.64 but quite frankly, that should be done by the makefile itself, not by the SPEC file. > > no dustmite? waaa.. ok fine. Dustmite is not there simply because makefile does not install it. Perhaps I should patch the makefile. But hey, this small project is basically to improve the SPEC file of the DMD installer. Once everything works I hope installer's SPEC file will be replaced with this one. > > From my own experience, I believe you are going to want > > Requires: glibc-devel(x86-32) > Requires: glibc-devel(x86-64) Yep! Definitely. > > in the dmd package to ensure -m32/-m64 work properly > > feel free to take any more from > > https://bitbucket.org/ariovistus/rpm-buildscripts/ src/21921c736116a51f60db4ab9cb5852fc0ae0b63c/dmd-git2rpm > > I don't know if those Provides are necessary, but I do remember it took > me a frustrating amount of time to get the 64 bit one right. Thanks, I will check that later!