Mon, 24 May 2010 17:45:01 +0000, dsimcha wrote: > == Quote from Leandro Lucarella (llu...@gmail.com)'s article >> dsimcha, el 24 de mayo a las 13:05 me escribiste: >> > == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail)'s >> > article >> > > On 23/05/2010 01:45, Walter Bright wrote: >> > > > Walter Bright wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Other toolchain problems are things like shared libraries, >> > > > installation, bugzilla bugs, etc. >> > > Installation? What kind of problems are those? >> > >> > On Linux, DMD can be a PITA to install if you're using an ancient >> > distribution due to glibc being a different version than what DMD >> > expects. I use such a machine and the only way to get DMD to work is >> > to compile from source. >> BTW, distributing a huge .zip with the binaries for all platforms is >> not ideal either. In Linux you have to make the binaries executables. >> The only straighforward option for Linux is the .deb, but it's only >> straightforward for Ubuntu 32-bits, anything else needs some >> (non-trivial) work. > > If packaging nightmares like this don't explain why Linux hasn't > succeeded on the desktop, then nothing will.
The files inside the .zip won't run because one particular Mr. Bright doesn't set the +x flag on. It's not a fault of Linux if he is using retarded Windows version of the zip packager. It's easy to fix, he just doesn't care. The zip works just fine even on a 64-bit system if the 32- bit libraries have been installed. The Microsoft installer stuff doesn't work well either. Try running 64- bit installers on a 32-bit Windows system or the latest .NET expecting .msi files on Windows 95/98/ME or Windows NT4/2000.. now how does it handle package dependencies - the answer is it doesn't. A 32-bit .deb works in most (if not all) 32-bit Debian derivatives unless the package is expecting some Ubuntu related configuration. Your solution seems to be: "because it's too complex to build packages for every distro, don't provide anything". Yay, nothing works.