On Sep 27, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Brad Roberts <bra...@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/2012 12:02 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 27 September 2012 03:14, Brad Roberts <bra...@puremagic.com> wrote: >>> >>> #4 there implies it's a source package, though I could be mis-interpreting >>> you. Is there a path for externally built binary packages? That's fairly >>> counter to the general distribution philosophy for most of them, so I'm >>> giong to guess no. >>> >> >> For #4, yes. Ubuntu is a better platform to approach for externally >> built binary-only packages. But for debian, you could possibly do >> something similar to how eg: the flash-plugin installer package works >> - downloads the tar.gz/zip from an external site, extract and install >> / configure in system. > > On reflection, #4 is not going to work for dmd.. neither ubuntu nor debian, > nor most distributions are going to be happy > with the license situation. Nor are they happy with binary only packages > anyway. The right path is to do #4 but only > for use on the dlang.org site (hosted via github's downloads api). Then, add > step #5 which is to automate source > bundling and pushing to distributions. I think you're probably right, but it's worth noting that the Ubuntu install asks whether to install a set of proprietary software at some point. So the thought of a DMD package available to Ubuntu users somehow seems entirely reasonable.
