retard wrote:
You also mentioned that upgrading Ubuntu has always failed. I've noticed
that if you wait few weeks after the new release, the automatic upgrade
is more successful. Also the problems are rather minor - start terminal
and write 'sudo dpkg ..something..; sudo aptitude update; sudo a
"retard" wrote in message
news:i4k3nr$al...@digitalmars.com...
>
> My laptop has been running Ubuntu since 6.06 beta
> releases. I once tried Kubuntu, but went back to Ubuntu because of the
> stability issues (yea, a reformat even though removing kubuntu-desktop
> might have been enough).
I rece
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:13:20 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I got into OSX with 10.1 and 10.2, and my sister had 10.3, and my
>> exprience indecates that Apple's outright disdain for anything that
>> isn't *the most recect* go back much furthur than just 10.4.
>
> I suspecte
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
It's called -mmacosx-version-min. Just add the version number like this:
gcc main.c -o main -mmacosx-version-min=10.5
Not what Apple's web pages say to do.
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-08-17 15:18:12 -0400, Walter Bright
said:
(If Apple cared about this, there'd be nothing more than a switch to
g++ along the lines of -osx=10.4 and it'll do whatever is necessary to
build a backward compatible binary.)
Have you tried -isysroot ?
gcc -isysr
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I got into OSX with 10.1 and 10.2, and my sister had 10.3, and my exprience
indecates that Apple's outright disdain for anything that isn't *the most
recect* go back much furthur than just 10.4.
I suspected that, but I thought I'd stick with what I knew for sure.
Plus
Michel Fortin wrote:
10.6's price might be the exception to the rule, or it might be the new
rule. We'll have to wait until the next upgrade to know.
It's my only experience with OS X upgrades.
On 2010-08-17 21:18, Walter Bright wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrej Mitrovic" wrote in message
news:mailman.343.1282068838.13841.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
But he's a Mac user! :p
Heh, that was exactly my thought ;) I'm not a mac user
(nearly-immediate obsolescence is one of the re
On 2010-08-17 19:35, lurker wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Please build the Mac version on Mac OS X 10.5 if possible otherwise it
will only run on Mac OS X 10.6. This should really be fixed in possible.
10.6 is over a year old, why not upgrade?
It costs money - money doe
On 2010-08-17 19:18, Walter Bright wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Please build the Mac version on Mac OS X 10.5 if possible otherwise it
will only run on Mac OS X 10.6. This should really be fixed in possible.
10.6 is over a year old, why not upgrade?
I just haven't got around and do it on one
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:i4ev6m$1bp...@digitalmars.com...
> "Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
> news:i4et66$141...@digitalmars.com...
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
>> news:i4emnt$bc...@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> I saw the q, and was still mulling for an answer. I t
On 2010-08-17 15:18:12 -0400, Walter Bright said:
(If Apple cared about this, there'd be nothing more than a switch to
g++ along the lines of -osx=10.4 and it'll do whatever is necessary to
build a backward compatible binary.)
Have you tried -isysroot ?
gcc -isysroot /Developer/SDKs
On 2010-08-17 16:24:01 -0400, "Nick Sabalausky" said:
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:i4en9n$dp...@digitalmars.com...
On the other hand, OS X upgrades tend to be cheap ($25) while Windows
upgrades tend to be expensive (hundreds of $).
That's news to me.
Snow Leopard is priced much l
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:i4et66$141...@digitalmars.com...
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
> news:i4emnt$bc...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> I saw the q, and was still mulling for an answer. I the join
>> intentionally, and now I think I remembered why.
>>
>> The join is need
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:i4emnt$bc...@digitalmars.com...
>
> I saw the q, and was still mulling for an answer. I the join
> intentionally, and now I think I remembered why.
>
> The join is needed in the probably rare case when you're running rdmd from
> a different directory
"simendsjo" wrote in message
news:i4eq4l$o6...@digitalmars.com...
> On 17.08.2010 21:08, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> But I don't think that works. This is a copy of a post I made in d.learn
> the other day:
>
> c:\temp\src\test.d
>
> c:\temp>rdmd src\test
> The system cannot find the path spe
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:i4er4n$sk...@digitalmars.com...
>
> I got into OSX with 10.1 and 10.2, and my sister had 10.3,
(She also got fed up with Apple's, well, what's essentially a
subscription-model, and has since switched to Win7.)
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> On the other hand, OS X upgrades tend to be cheap ($25) while Windows upgrades
> tend to be expensive (hundreds of $).
Me like facts:
Windows 7 prof upgrade cost at walmart: 160$
(new oem is 100$)
10.1Puma2001
10.2J
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:i4en9n$dp...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrej Mitrovic" wrote in message
>> news:mailman.343.1282068838.13841.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>>> But he's a Mac user! :p
>>>
>>
>> Heh, that was exactly my thought ;) I'm not a mac user
On 08/17/2010 03:06 PM, simendsjo wrote:
On 17.08.2010 21:08, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 08/17/2010 01:34 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:i4cq4p$7j...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
The RDMD included with DMD is still 20090902, which is two
On 17.08.2010 21:08, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 08/17/2010 01:34 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:i4cq4p$7j...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
The RDMD included with DMD is still 20090902, which is two revisions
out-of-date.
The lack of the f
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
But I've
overcustomized my system so much that switching to anything else would
be a pain.
To Apple's credit, the upgrade from OS X 10.5 to 10.6 was the least painful of
any upgrade I've done, from Windows to Linux, because it is the only one where I
did not have to re
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrej Mitrovic" wrote in message
news:mailman.343.1282068838.13841.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
But he's a Mac user! :p
Heh, that was exactly my thought ;) I'm not a mac user (nearly-immediate
obsolescence is one of the reasons I left the Mac world after giving O
On 08/17/2010 01:34 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:i4cq4p$7j...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
The RDMD included with DMD is still 20090902, which is two revisions
out-of-date.
The lack of the fix in r1315 ("Made relative paths searched from
Well, I didn't really mean anything by it. :)
AFAIK the update from 10.5 to 10.6 wasn't all that expensive? Wasn't this
the Leopard > Snow Leopard patch?
OT: I like OSX, everything is very consistent and in place. But I've
overcustomized my system so much that switching to anything else would be
"Andrej Mitrovic" wrote in message
news:mailman.343.1282068838.13841.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> But he's a Mac user! :p
>
Heh, that was exactly my thought ;) I'm not a mac user (nearly-immediate
obsolescence is one of the reasons I left the Mac world after giving OSX a
serious try for a
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:i4cq4p$7j...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> The RDMD included with DMD is still 20090902, which is two revisions
>> out-of-date.
>>
>> The lack of the fix in r1315 ("Made relative paths searched from the main
>> file, not the current d
But he's a Mac user! :p
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 7:35 PM, lurker wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
> > Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > > Please build the Mac version on Mac OS X 10.5 if possible otherwise it
> > > will only run on Mac OS X 10.6. This should really be fixed in
> possible.
> >
> > 10.6 is
Walter Bright Wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > Please build the Mac version on Mac OS X 10.5 if possible otherwise it
> > will only run on Mac OS X 10.6. This should really be fixed in possible.
>
> 10.6 is over a year old, why not upgrade?
It costs money - money doesn't grow on trees?
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Please build the Mac version on Mac OS X 10.5 if possible otherwise it
will only run on Mac OS X 10.6. This should really be fixed in possible.
10.6 is over a year old, why not upgrade?
On 2010-08-17 08:29, Walter Bright wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
This has been brought up at least a couple times before, and didn't
get any official response. Is there something preventing this from
happening that maybe I could help out on?
I'll take care of it. Sorry about the delays.
Plea
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
> Walter, could you please update your build scripts to build and include
> rdmd? It's an important tool. Thanks.
> Andrei
That would be great...
But it seems rdmd and my project still aren't getting along (the change in
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
This has been brought up at least a couple times before, and didn't get any
official response. Is there something preventing this from happening that
maybe I could help out on?
I'll take care of it. Sorry about the delays.
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
The RDMD included with DMD is still 20090902, which is two revisions
out-of-date.
The lack of the fix in r1315 ("Made relative paths searched from the main
file, not the current dir") is a breaker for using RDMD with my projects,
which is particularly bad since xfbuild
Nick Sabalausky:
> which is particularly bad since xfbuild (my other go-to build tool) seems to
> have become incompatible with newer D2s (Ie, certain basic things that work
> with newer DMDs get choked on by xfbuild).
If/once xfbuild shows to be good enough and easy enough to use (I have never
The RDMD included with DMD is still 20090902, which is two revisions
out-of-date.
The lack of the fix in r1315 ("Made relative paths searched from the main
file, not the current dir") is a breaker for using RDMD with my projects,
which is particularly bad since xfbuild (my other go-to build too
36 matches
Mail list logo
