On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 05:45:07PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:00:32 -0700 > "H. S. Teoh" <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 04:37:32PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:48:54 +0200 Jordi Sayol <g.sa...@yahoo.es> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Linux dmd will not include /usr/include/d path by default to > > > > avoid conflicts with ldc1 (tango) "object.di" incompatibility, > > > > and I recommend you to not use this path for that reason. > > > > > > > > > > Then we can use '/usr/include/d2'. Problem solved ;) > > > > I propose /usr/include/d/${version}/. It will make it possible for > > multiple versions of dmd to coexist, as well as eliminate version > > incompatibility problems (or at least make them very unlikely). > > > > Mixing everything in /usr/include/d (or /usr/include/d2) with the > > fact that dmd releases have been incompatible with older > > druntime/phobos is just asking for trouble. > > > > If by ${version} you mean 2.059, 2.060, etc., then I don't like that. > I don't want to have to have the same library installed separately for > every version of DMD on my system. That's just a mess.
If you have multiple versions of DMD sharing the same /usr/include/d, that's even more of a mess. Of course, ideally, when you upgrade DMD it will also uninstall the older stuff so that you don't have like 50 stale copies of druntime/phobos after upgrading 50 times. That's something for the package manager to take care of. :-P > A way to have multiple versions of the same lib would be good though. > Although that's one of the reasons I prefer to just use -I instead of > messing with system-wide installation anyway. How else would you have multiple versions of the same lib, though? They can't all live in the same place since files will conflict. T -- Life is complex. It consists of real and imaginary parts. -- YHL