On 01/25/2016 12:08 PM, ikod wrote: > Hello > > I'd like to hear any opinions and best practices on coexistence of dub > and debian .deb packaging and deployment. > > Here is my problem: I wrote some small library that use Pegged to parse > and process user requests. This library can be used in shebang-scripts > on servers or can be statically linked to applications. The first case > require library code and dependencies (Pegged in this case) be deployed > on servers to some well-known system-wide place like /usr/include/d/ so > that any developer can simply use line like '#!/usr/bin/rdmd --shebang > -I/usr/include/d` in his script. > > And here is a problem: we (like many other) distribute our software over > our debian-based machines using standard debian packaging system. There > is no problem for me to wrap my library into .deb. The question about > Pegged or any other dub-based D library - how do you think, what is > better way to tie together dub and deb-packaged software? > > Should I use some postinstall scripts to fetch-build-deploy Pegged to > /usr/include/d/ using dub, or should I wrap Pegged in separate .deb and > include it dependencies in my library or any other package relying on > Pegged? For me the latter way is better/ but what is your opinion? > >
I think there's a longer discussion one one of the dub issues that explains why this doesn't exist yet. The blocker is that the D ABI is not compatible across compilers (dmd vs. ldc vs. gdc) or compiler versions (2.068 vs. 2.069). Until there's a reasonable resolution to that problem, I don't think there will be OS packages of libraries. -- Paul O'Neil Github / IRC: todayman