On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:56:02 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 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
>
Well, if you're talking about phobos/druntime, then I agree since those
are tied to the compiler they come with. But I was talking about third
party libs. I think it may be good to keep a separation for D1 libs vs
D2 libs, but not (for example) 2.059 vs 2.060 (except, of course, for
phobos and druntime).
Of course, I'm not sure separate 2.059 vs 2.060 (etc...) dirs for
third-party libs would even work at all, because how are you going to
tell (for example) a xxxx.deb file which compiler's dir to install
into? Give your lib a separate .deb for each version of DMD?
"dlibfoobar-dmd-2.059.deb", "dlibfoobar-dmd-2.060.deb"...etc?
>
> > 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.
>
Unfortunately, I see only two realistic possibilities:
A. Forget about system-wide lib installation and pass -I... to the
compiler for each lib you're using. Kind of a pain but...
B. Wait for a proper D package manager.
Personally, I choose "A", at least for the time being ;)
