On 06/02/2013 03:47 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
I've just run:
sudo ln -s /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63
for now but i've never had to do that before. Is this a problem with the
installer?
Sorry that was my fault, I missed that when fixing
On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 21:18:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Also does .tar.gz vs .tar.bz2 matter? I understand that the
latter
(if I spelled it right) is newer and better compression, but
any reason
that it might *need* to be one or the other?
I'd look at xz, it's increasingly becoming the
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 19:13:46 Joakim wrote:
On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 21:18:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Also does .tar.gz vs .tar.bz2 matter? I understand that the
latter
(if I spelled it right) is newer and better compression, but
any reason
that it might *need* to be one or
On Wednesday, 5 June 2013 at 17:24:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
In my experience, xz has way worse compression time than bzip2,
and on smaller
files, it actually compresses worse. Where xz shines are large
files. It
definitely beats out bzip2 by a fair bit there. But as it loses
at small
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 14:13 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
[…]
1. unzip the zip file
2. add symbolic links
3. create tarball
Not the right way of doing it.
[…]
It's already tagged with v2.063
1. clone repository
2. checkout to tag
3. generate tar.gz file
Definitely a better way.
The
On 2013-06-03 23:08, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I intend to. But I do think it would be good if we then update DVM
to use the platform-specific versions, to preserve bandwidth and
improve dload/installation speeds.
I would like to rewrite the whole tool. Then we can fix all these
things. Haven't
On 2013-06-03 19:29, Walter Bright wrote:
Creating deps and rpms is done from the zip file, and the scripts are here:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer
The Mac OS X installer is built from the zip file as well. If we change
format or anything similar we need to update
On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 09:16:12 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-06-03 19:29, Walter Bright wrote:
Creating deps and rpms is done from the zip file, and the scripts are here:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer
The Mac OS X installer is built from the zip file as well.
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:57:49 +0200
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2013-06-03 23:08, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I intend to. But I do think it would be good if we then update DVM
to use the platform-specific versions, to preserve bandwidth and
improve dload/installation speeds.
I
On 6/3/2013 5:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But why create it as a zip file in the first place?
Because creating tarballs on Windows is a big problem, not the least of which
you can't create symlinks on Windows, so even if you found a working Windows tar
program you still haven't solved the
On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 00:52:27 Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/3/2013 5:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But why create it as a zip file in the first place?
Because creating tarballs on Windows is a big problem, not the least of
which you can't create symlinks on Windows, so even if you found a
On 2013-06-04 09:52, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/3/2013 5:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But why create it as a zip file in the first place?
Because creating tarballs on Windows is a big problem, not the least of
which you can't create symlinks on Windows, so even if you found a
working Windows
On 2013-06-04 09:39, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Just curious: What sort of direction did you have in mind for a rewrite?
Something about the general architecture of it you'd do differently?
* All the functionality shouldn't be in the commands. The commands
should invoke library
On Sunday, 2 June 2013 at 21:00:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 13:11 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 15:47:36 Gary Willoughby wrote:
I've just run:
sudo ln -s /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63
On 2013-06-03 04:33, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I quoted all of the above because I so much agree with it. Packaging all
OSs in a zip is really disingenuous and now it's come to a head. Let's
fix this for 2.064.
DVM relies on DMD being packaged as a single zip. As long as that is
kept, you
On 2013-06-03 02:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I don't think that much of anyone around here
thinks that the zip should contain all of the OSes.
DVM relies on DMD being packaged as a single zip. As long as that is
kept, you can do whatever you want.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2013-06-03 00:25, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yea, I'm working on a replacement.
Please keep the existing zip packages as well, we don't want to break DVM :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Monday, June 03, 2013 09:20:58 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-06-03 02:15, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I don't think that much of anyone around here
thinks that the zip should contain all of the OSes.
DVM relies on DMD being packaged as a single zip. As long as that is
kept, you can do
On 2013-06-03 09:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Except that that's _exactly_ what we want to get rid of. It's ridiculous to
put them all in one zip. It just wastes bandwidth, and it doesn't work with
symlinks, and now that we're adding shared libraries, we need the *nix
packages to have symlinks
On Monday, June 03, 2013 10:23:10 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-06-03 09:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Except that that's _exactly_ what we want to get rid of. It's ridiculous
to
put them all in one zip. It just wastes bandwidth, and it doesn't work
with
symlinks, and now that we're
On 2013-06-03 10:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Well, part of the problem is that the zip is inherently broken for *nix
systems due to the fact that symlinks don't work properly. So, now that we
have an so version of Phobos, the zip just isn't going to work properly
anymore. And while we aren't
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 08:18 +0200, deadalnix wrote:
[…]
libphobos2.so.0.63 the file
libphobos2.so.0 a symbolic link to libphobos2.so.0.63
libphobos2.so a symbolic link to libphobos2.so.0
And symlink are created automagically by tooling.
For Debian the symlinks are create by
On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 12:19:49 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
...
In most basic form there should be just set of instructions for
packagers to conform post-install hook to. Especially when it
comes to main repos and stuff is build from SVN/Git whenever it
is possible. Providing .deb and .rpm
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 17:50 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
[…]
The complaint from Russel was about the .deb file.
In any case, anyone is free to create a script to build whatever combination
they want, in any format they want, and submit it as a pull request to
installer. Nobody has to wait
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 17:47 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…]
All you should have to do is set the PATH so that it has dmd in it.
Everything
else should just work.
There is also the issue about whether the compiled stuff has the correct
soname in it.
I think the correct solution for the
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 19:09 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
[…]
hey! the rpm behaves the same way! Maybe building a fedora package on
ubuntu is in fact a terrible idea!
Build a Fedora package on Fedora or don't build it at all.
Question Fedora 17, 18, 19…
I could currently help with 18 but as
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 18:20 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…]
I don't believe that it's not an ldconfig problem. It's the fact that there's
a
libphobos2.so and not a libphobos2.so.0.63. It's the exact same problem that
the rpm and deb files are having. dmd.conf already makes it so that the
On 6/2/2013 3:05 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
It's done entirely by Walter on his own systems, and I suspect that the deb
and rpm files are created from the zip file (though I'm not sure if he creates
those or someone else does). We need to change it so that the process for
generating them is
On 06/03/2013 01:30 AM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 04:12 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 16:03 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
[…]
$ objdump -p libphobos2.so | grep SONAME
SONAME libphobos2.so.0.63
Exactly, the actual file should have the fully
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 20:09 +0200, Mike Wey wrote:
[…]
Currently the Phobos make file generates: libphobos2.so.0.63.0 and
creates two simlinks libphobos2.so and libphobos2.so.0.63, and sets the
soname to libphobos2.s0.0.63.
The soname currently includes the minor version number because the
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 10:29 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/2/2013 3:05 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
It's done entirely by Walter on his own systems, and I suspect that the deb
and rpm files are created from the zip file (though I'm not sure if he
creates
those or someone else does). We
On 6/3/13 2:30 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 10:29 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/2/2013 3:05 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
It's done entirely by Walter on his own systems, and I suspect that the deb
and rpm files are created from the zip file (though I'm not sure if he
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 14:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
Instead of planning to work on it, one alternative would be to post bits
and pieces of information in a bug report and guide others how to do it.
Just a thought.
OK. How about trying:
On 6/3/13 2:47 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 14:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[…]
Instead of planning to work on it, one alternative would be to post bits
and pieces of information in a bug report and guide others how to do it.
Just a thought.
OK. How about trying:
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 14:53 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Thanks. We've learned with time to organized ourselves really well
around bug reports (both discussions and guides for implementation), so:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10256
OK, whatever helps progress this.
On 6/3/2013 8:59 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
Is there a tarball or only this infamous zipfile?
I can't believe it is hard to create a tarball from a zipfile.
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 12:38 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/3/2013 8:59 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
Is there a tarball or only this infamous zipfile?
I can't believe it is hard to create a tarball from a zipfile.
Actually it can be since tarballs can represent symbolic links whereas
it
On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 19:50:29 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
The solution to the issue as far as generating a deb is
concerned is to tag the DMD Git repository so that anyone can
generate
an official source tarball given the release tag.
It is how this is done in Arch Linux right now. Uses
On 06/03/2013 08:25 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
Also there should be a symbolic link libphobos2.so.0 shouldn't there?
At some point yes, the minor version should be dropped from the
so/symlink used by the application and is set as the soname.
But i would wait for phobos/dmd to stabilize, so
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 09:23:35 +0200
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2013-06-03 00:25, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yea, I'm working on a replacement.
Please keep the existing zip packages as well, we don't want to break
DVM :)
I intend to. But I do think it would be good if we then
On 6/3/2013 12:50 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 12:38 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/3/2013 8:59 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
Is there a tarball or only this infamous zipfile?
I can't believe it is hard to create a tarball from a zipfile.
Actually it can be since tarballs
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:33:03 -0400
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
I quoted all of the above because I so much agree with it. Packaging
all OSs in a zip is really disingenuous and now it's come to a head.
Let's fix this for 2.064.
FWIW, I fully intend to have my
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:30:16 +0100
Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
The start point has to be a tarball of the source. If this is not part
of the distribution release then we need to agree an officially
acceptable process for creating a release source tarball.
My tool will do
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:33:05 -0700
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
On Monday, June 03, 2013 00:38:09 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 16:58:29 -0700
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:52:03 Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/2/2013
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:12:31 -0400
Nick Sabalausky seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:30:16 +0100
Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
The start point has to be a tarball of the source. If this is not
part of the distribution release then we need to
On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 21:18:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Also does .tar.gz
I prefer tar.gz because bzip is SLOW. There's some space savings
but meh.
gzip is slightly more likely to be already installed on a box
too, though bzip is like 99% so that doesn't matter a lot.
I have two requests if we start changing the zip, since I'm
pretty happy with it how it is!
1) keep the folder structure the same as it is now. So the
windows zip still has a windows folder in it with the bin and lib
stuff. The only difference from the current thing is you remove
the linux
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:21:30 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe
destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 21:18:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Also does .tar.gz
I prefer tar.gz because bzip is SLOW. There's some space savings but meh.
+1 when developing an imaging system for hard
On Monday, June 03, 2013 11:42:53 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-06-03 10:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Well, part of the problem is that the zip is inherently broken for *nix
systems due to the fact that symlinks don't work properly. So, now that we
have an so version of Phobos, the zip just
On Monday, June 03, 2013 16:59:16 Russel Winder wrote:
Is there a tarball or only this infamous zipfile?
Only the zip file, which is the main reason why all of the symlinks are broken.
But Nick is working on changing it so that we generate separate packages for
each OS, and Brad Roberts has
On Monday, June 03, 2013 23:27:00 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
2) still keep the zips for all the OSes available. I don't use a
package manager and don't care for installers. I still want a
dmd-windows.zip and dmd-linux.zip and so on. (or
dmd-linux.tar.gz, whatever, as long as the contents are the
On Monday, June 03, 2013 14:13:26 Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/3/2013 12:50 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 12:38 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/3/2013 8:59 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
Is there a tarball or only this infamous zipfile?
I can't believe it is hard to create a
Hi,
I get the following error while running a simple hello world
program compiled with the new v2.063 compiler. This is on Ubuntu
12.04.
error while loading shared libraries: libphobos2.so.0.63: cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
I've just run:
sudo ln -s /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63
for now but i've never had to do that before. Is this a problem
with the installer?
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 15:47:36 Gary Willoughby wrote:
I've just run:
sudo ln -s /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63
for now but i've never had to do that before. Is this a problem
with the installer?
If you had to do that, then yes.
-
On 06/02/2013 06:47 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
I've just run:
sudo ln -s /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63
for now but i've never had to do that before. Is this a problem with the
installer?
same problem with rpm installer.
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 13:11 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 15:47:36 Gary Willoughby wrote:
I've just run:
sudo ln -s /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63
for now but i've never had to do that before. Is this a
On 06/02/2013 02:00 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
is non-standard and not compliant. The standard structure should be:
libphobos2.so.0.63 the file
libphobos2.so.0 a symbolic link to libphobos2.so.0.63
libphobos2.so a symbolic link to libphobos2.so.0
what is libphobos2.0
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 22:00:43 Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 13:11 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 15:47:36 Gary Willoughby wrote:
I've just run:
sudo ln -s /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63
On 06/02/2013 02:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
he was talking about making
it up to the maintainers to create the various symlinks, which IMHO is
unacceptable long term
why?
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 14:29:39 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 02:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
he was talking about making
it up to the maintainers to create the various symlinks, which IMHO is
unacceptable long term
why?
Because of the problems of zip with symlinks. He would
W dniu 02.06.2013 15:05, Gary Willoughby pisze:
Hi,
I get the following error while running a simple hello world program
compiled with the new v2.063 compiler. This is on Ubuntu 12.04.
error while loading shared libraries: libphobos2.so.0.63: cannot open
shared object file: No such file or
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 14:39 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…]
Nick Sabalausky was looking at fixing up how the zip files are generated for
Walter so that they we have separate packages for each OS, and if sorts that
out, then I'm sure that the symlink issue can and will be sorted out. I
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 14:13 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 02:00 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
is non-standard and not compliant. The standard structure should be:
libphobos2.so.0.63 the file
libphobos2.so.0 a symbolic link to libphobos2.so.0.63
libphobos2.so a
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 14:20 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…]
Create a bug report for it. I don't think that Walter realizes what's
standard. And this whole problem probably stems from the fact that he can't
put symlinks in the zip file that he generates, so he was talking about
making
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 22:52:59 Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 14:20 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…]
Create a bug report for it. I don't think that Walter realizes what's
standard. And this whole problem probably stems from the fact that he
can't
put symlinks in the
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:52:59 +0100
Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
Sounds like the system for creating distributions is broken.
Yea, I'm working on a replacement.
On 06/02/2013 02:51 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 14:13 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 02:00 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
is non-standard and not compliant. The standard structure should be:
libphobos2.so.0.63 the file
libphobos2.so.0 a symbolic link
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 16:03 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
[…]
$ objdump -p libphobos2.so | grep SONAME
SONAME libphobos2.so.0.63
Exactly, the actual file should have the fully qualified soname and all
other filenames should be symbolic links to that file. Currently the DMD
deb
On 06/02/2013 04:12 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 16:03 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
[…]
$ objdump -p libphobos2.so | grep SONAME
SONAME libphobos2.so.0.63
Exactly, the actual file should have the fully qualified soname and all
other filenames should be
On 06/02/2013 03:05 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 22:52:59 Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 14:20 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…]
Create a bug report for it. I don't think that Walter realizes what's
standard. And this whole problem probably stems from the
On 6/2/2013 2:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Create a bug report for it. I don't think that Walter realizes what's
standard. And this whole problem probably stems from the fact that he can't
put symlinks in the zip file that he generates, so he was talking about making
it up to the maintainers
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:42:12 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
I thought the packages were generated using the scripts at
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/tree/master/linux
which pull the zip files from ftp.digitalmars.com
They may. I don't know what the current process is
On 6/2/2013 2:52 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
Not being able to put symlinks in a zipfile has nothing to do with
getting deb files and RPM files correct since they should be built from
tarballs.
Anyone is welcome to help out with the scripts that create deb and rpm files,
which are here:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:50:00 Walter Bright wrote:
It already is broken up per OS:
http://dlang.org/download.html
But the _zip_ file isn't. We keep asking for _that_ to be broken up. That's
completely separate from whatever is going on with rpms or debs or exe
installers. Plenty of
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:52:03 Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/2/2013 2:52 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
Not being able to put symlinks in a zipfile has nothing to do with
getting deb files and RPM files correct since they should be built from
tarballs.
Anyone is welcome to help out with the
On 06/02/2013 04:50 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:42:12 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
I thought the packages were generated using the scripts at
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/tree/master/linux
which pull the zip files from ftp.digitalmars.com
They
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:57:08 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
where is this mythical autotester, anyways?
Mythical? Oh ye of little faith:
http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/
dmd, druntime, and Phobos are built are their unit tests run after every
commit. And the pull tester (
On 6/2/2013 4:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:50:00 Walter Bright wrote:
It already is broken up per OS:
http://dlang.org/download.html
But the _zip_ file isn't. We keep asking for _that_ to be broken up.
There's no reason to, as broken up ones are available
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/2/2013 4:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:50:00 Walter Bright wrote:
It already is broken up per OS:
http://dlang.org/download.html
But the _zip_ file isn't. We keep asking for _that_ to be broken
On 06/02/2013 05:08 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:57:08 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
where is this mythical autotester, anyways?
Mythical? Oh ye of little faith:
http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/
dmd, druntime, and Phobos are built are their unit tests run after every
On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
Regardless, the symlink issue alone shows that using the zip file format for
*nix is a mistake. Any packages released for *nix needs to support symlinks
correctly.
- Jonathan M Davis
Is it
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:24:47 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
Regardless, the symlink issue alone shows that using the zip file format
for *nix is a mistake. Any packages released for *nix
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:20:37 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
what distro are those linux tests performed on?
I don't know. You'd probably have to ask Brad Roberts.
- Jonathan M Davis
On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:20:37 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
what distro are those linux tests performed on?
I don't know. You'd probably have to ask Brad Roberts.
- Jonathan M Davis
just asking because the rpm script in installer is set up to
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:39:50 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:20:37 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
what distro are those linux tests performed on?
I don't know. You'd probably have to ask Brad Roberts.
- Jonathan M Davis
On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:24:47 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
Regardless, the symlink issue alone shows that using the zip file format
for *nix is
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:43:20 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:24:47 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
Regardless, the
On 6/2/2013 5:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/2/2013 4:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:50:00 Walter Bright wrote:
It already is broken up per OS:
http://dlang.org/download.html
But the _zip_ file
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:50:46 Walter Bright wrote:
In any case, anyone is free to create a script to build whatever combination
they want, in any format they want, and submit it as a pull request to
installer. Nobody has to wait on me to do it.
On 06/02/2013 05:47 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:43:20 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:24:47 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 18:12:06 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:47 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:43:20 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:24:47 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:15
On 06/02/2013 03:25 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:52:59 +0100
Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
Sounds like the system for creating distributions is broken.
Yea, I'm working on a replacement.
do tell
On 06/02/2013 06:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I don't believe that it's not an ldconfig problem. It's the fact that there's a
libphobos2.so and not a libphobos2.so.0.63. It's the exact same problem that
the rpm and deb files are having. dmd.conf already makes it so that the linker
looks in
On 6/2/13 7:42 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
I thought the packages were generated using the scripts at
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/tree/master/linux
which pull the zip files from ftp.digitalmars.com
What would an automated process look like? I would think something like
On 6/2/13 8:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/2/2013 4:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:50:00 Walter Bright wrote:
It already is broken up per OS:
http://dlang.org/download.html
But the _zip_ file isn't.
On 6/2/13 8:24 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
Regardless, the symlink issue alone shows that using the zip file
format for
*nix is a mistake. Any packages released for *nix needs to support
On 6/2/13 7:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/2/13 8:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/2/2013 4:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:50:00 Walter Bright wrote:
It already is broken up per OS:
On 06/02/2013 07:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/2/13 8:24 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 06/02/2013 05:15 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 17:08:41 Walter Bright wrote:
Regardless, the symlink issue alone shows that using the zip file
format for
*nix is a mistake.
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 16:58:29 -0700
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 02, 2013 16:52:03 Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/2/2013 2:52 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
Not being able to put symlinks in a zipfile has nothing to do with
getting deb files and RPM files correct since
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
