On 17 October 2012 18:39, Jordi Sayol <g.sa...@yahoo.es> wrote: > Al 17/10/12 14:03, En/na Manu ha escrit: > > > > why include/d2? include/d/ seems much better... what are the chances a > library have both a d1 and d2 version which may conflict in include/d? > > > > A practical example: > Imagine that you installs the libray "foo" for D, and places the sources > at "/usr/include/d/foo" directory, *so you need to add "-I/usr/include/d" > as compiler argument*. >
No, I don't need to add it as an argument, that's the point. In Debian/Ubuntu there is the "libtango-headers" package, which install, > among others, "/usr/include/d/object.di". This Tango "object.di" breaks d2, > so you will not be able to compile anything with the "-I/usr/include/d" > argument, and so, you cannot compile against your "foo" library. > > The problem here is that the "libtango-headers" maintainer decided to > place "object.di" directly into "/usr/include/d", overriding to use this > directory for any other D compiler/version. > Okay, so the problem is that an existing package has already declared that directory to be a standard location. so then include/d2/ then... I guess. Although that seems sad; D shouldn't identify its self as the second coming of D, since that basically implies that the first coming was a failure.