Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:36:41 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Most programming languages are going this route, used programming language tools and libraries are decreasingly packaged by the OS. Exactly the reason why we banned Go quite recently. Just far too expensive, especially w/

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:56:59 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: But if we just use dub - which _is_ the official packaging and build tool - then we avoid these issues. Ideally, the compiler and dub would be part of the distro, but libraries don't need to be. But that would defeat a

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 00:47:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: Hi folks, Also, what are we even looking to distribute in debian? I would have thought that the normal thing to do would be to build with dub, in which case, having the compiler and dub be debian packages makes sense but not

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

Am Wed, 03 May 2017 01:02:38 + schrieb Moritz Maxeiner : > On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 at 23:27:28 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: > > Am Tue, 02 May 2017 20:53:50 + > > schrieb Moritz Maxeiner : > > > >> On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 at 19:34:44 UTC, Marco Leise

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 at 23:27:28 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Am Tue, 02 May 2017 20:53:50 + schrieb Moritz Maxeiner : On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 at 19:34:44 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: > > I see what you're doing there, but your last point is > wishful thinking. Dynamically

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

Am Tue, 02 May 2017 20:53:50 + schrieb Moritz Maxeiner : > On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 at 19:34:44 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: > > > > I see what you're doing there, but your last point is wishful > > thinking. Dynamically linked binaries can share megabytes of > > code. Even

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 at 19:34:44 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: I see what you're doing there, but your last point is wishful thinking. Dynamically linked binaries can share megabytes of code. Even Phobos - although heavily templated - has proven to be very amenable to sharing. For example, a

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 at 19:34:44 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: static Phobos2 : 806968 bytes dynamic Phobos2 : 18552 bytes That's about 770 KiB to share or 97.7% of its total size! Awesome! By the way, using LDC: 402736 bytes for the static build (Linux x86_64). ;) — David

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

Am Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:03:36 + schrieb qznc : > On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:56:59 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > But if we just use dub - which _is_ the official packaging and > > build tool - then we avoid these issues. Ideally, the compiler > > and dub would be part of

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

Am Tue, 11 Apr 2017 07:40:12 -0700 schrieb Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d : > It could always just be distributed as a static library. There arguably > isn't much point in distributing it as a shared library anyway - > particularly when it's not ABI compatible

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

Am Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:42:42 + schrieb Martin Nowak : > Our point releases might also contain small ABI > incompatibilities, so they aren't really eligible as patch > version. I've actually been hit by this in one point release on Gentoo, where I used dynamic linking for

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 11 April 2017 at 23:02, Johannes Pfau via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Am Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:21:57 + > schrieb Matthias Klumpp : > >> can be used by Automake >> (native), > > Do you maintain D support for automake? I wrote some basic D support > for

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

Am Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:42:42 + schrieb Martin Nowak : > On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 16:12:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > Last time someone else looked, it seemed like LDC and DMD make > > use of SOVERSION, but do so in an incorrect manner. > > You know what exactly is the

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 16:12:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: Last time someone else looked, it seemed like LDC and DMD make use of SOVERSION, but do so in an incorrect manner. You know what exactly is the problem? Any suggestion what to use instead? It's currently using libphobos2.so.0.74,

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 21:08:05 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote: I'd think of .d files as a superset of .di files. Note that there is zero difference between them. The compiler treats both *exactly* the same way (it just considers the extensions to be aliases of each other). It is just a

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

Am Tue, 11 Apr 2017 07:44:45 -0700 schrieb Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d : > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 14:33:01 Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d > wrote: > > On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:26:37 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: > > > [...] > > > The problem with

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

Am Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:21:57 + schrieb Matthias Klumpp : > can be used by Automake > (native), Do you maintain D support for automake? I wrote some basic D support for autoconf and libtool (https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/tree/master/libphobos/m4) but no automake

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 11 April 2017 at 20:13, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:36:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> All the regression fixes and none of the bugs! > > > That's an interesting approach (spoken with British language sensibilities). >

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 18:14:40 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:03:27 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:15:53 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: So do we need to put a reminder about the ABI being unstable into set of every release notes to

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 2017-04-11 19:34, Walter Bright wrote: Looks like it solves it by adding another layer of indirection: "the performance overhead of the extra ivar offset variable is small." Yes, there are always tradeoffs. But as you've said, exceptions are already slow ;) -- /Jacob Carlborg

GtkD static/shared library linking performance [was: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD]

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 18:13:11 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: I have only the data that compiling and linking a GtkD application against a shared library is a lot shorter than against a static library. Sure, but that might be easily fixed, and if you really want to use shared libraries,

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:03:27 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:15:53 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: So do we need to put a reminder about the ABI being unstable into set of every release notes to make sure we won't get angry bug reports once users actually build

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:36:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: All the regression fixes and none of the bugs! That's an interesting approach (spoken with British language sensibilities). Is anybody using GDC on a big "modern" D2 codebase (metaprogramming-heavy, …) right now? From my

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 17:02 +, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:49:03 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: > > Having played a bit with GtkD, you always want this as a shared  > > library for development. > > Why would a shared library be preferable to a static

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 11 April 2017 at 14:11, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:36:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> On 10 April 2017 at 23:52, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d >> wrote: >>> >>> On Monday, 10 April

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 4/11/2017 6:46 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: http://www.sealiesoftware.com/blog/archive/2009/01/27/objc_explain_Non-fragile_ivars.html Looks like it solves it by adding another layer of indirection: "the performance overhead of the extra ivar offset variable is small."

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:49:03 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Having played a bit with GtkD, you always want this as a shared library for development. Why would a shared library be preferable to a static library for that (which might still be re-used between different projects, etc.)? —

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 11 April 2017 at 17:48, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 15:31:46 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:38:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >>> >>> If you could change the SOVERSION with every one of

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 15:31:46 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:38:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: If you could change the SOVERSION with every one of these changes, or simply just tie it to the respective Phobos release, distributions would automatically do

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:38:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: If you could change the SOVERSION with every one of these changes, or simply just tie it to the respective Phobos release, distributions would automatically do the right thing and compile all D code using Phobos against the new

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:43:15 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 14:21 +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] At time I am playing around with the idea of using pkg-config[1] files to enlist the sources a D library consists of. By doing that, we would have

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:49:03 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: [...] Having played a bit with GtkD, you always want this as a shared library for development. Yeah, GtkD is pretty massive and takes quite a large amount of time to compile... Redoing that for each software depending on it is

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:56:59 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: But if we just use dub - which _is_ the official packaging and build tool - then we avoid these issues. Ideally, the compiler and dub would be part of the distro, but libraries don't need to be. And it sounds like that's

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 07:40 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 14:21:57 Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d > wrote: > > This will *not* solve the issues with Phobos breakage though, as > > Phobos is a shared library. > > It could always just be

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 14:33:01 Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:26:37 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: > > [...] > > The problem with /usr/include/d is that is where .di files > > would be located not .d. This would also match up with the > > c/c++ usage

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 11/04/2017 3:33 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:26:37 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: [...] The problem with /usr/include/d is that is where .di files would be located not .d. This would also match up with the c/c++ usage of it. When I asked about this a while back,

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 14:21 +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > At time I am playing around with the idea of using pkg-config[1]  > files to enlist the sources a D library consists of. > By doing that, we would have a very build-system agnostic way of  > doing storing that

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 14:21:57 Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > This will *not* solve the issues with Phobos breakage though, as > Phobos is a shared library. It could always just be distributed as a static library. There arguably isn't much point in distributing it as a shared

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:26:37 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: [...] The problem with /usr/include/d is that is where .di files would be located not .d. This would also match up with the c/c++ usage of it. When I asked about this a while back, I was told to just install the sources into

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 11/04/2017 3:21 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:04:44 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: [...] /usr/share/source/D/package-name-version Add a search path like that to Dub and create source only library packages and that is pretty much all the distribution we need for

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:04:44 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: [...] /usr/share/source/D/package-name-version Add a search path like that to Dub and create source only library packages and that is pretty much all the distribution we need for libraries I reckon. It's more likely that the

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 11/04/2017 3:01 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2017-04-11 14:56, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: That's basically what's required with D. It is not ABI compatible across releases, and while ABI compatibility might be nice, it really isn't reasonable with D - especially with how

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 2017-04-11 14:56, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: That's basically what's required with D. It is not ABI compatible across releases, and while ABI compatibility might be nice, it really isn't reasonable with D - especially with how attributes work and how template heavy D code is.

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 13:43:38 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2017-04-11 02:47, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: Honestly, I don't see how it really makes much sense to use shared libraries with D except in cases where you have no choice. The lack of ABI compatibility makes

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 2017-04-11 02:20, Walter Bright wrote: On 4/10/2017 4:43 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: [1] In fact, it looks like – for example with DMD moving to libunwind-based EH as well – the issue is slowly resolving itself anyway and at some point we'll merely have to sit down for a week and iron out the

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 2017-04-11 02:47, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: Honestly, I don't see how it really makes much sense to use shared libraries with D except in cases where you have no choice. The lack of ABI compatibility makes them almost useless. Also, what are we even looking to distribute in

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:47:13 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: So why bother, no Rust people will use it, they just use Cargo and it gets stuff for them. Why bother packaging anything when people will not use it? All you need to have a working Rust system on Debian is curl and bash. Users

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:25:09 Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Haskell and OCaml permanently rebuild the whole stack on every > new compiler release, which is why they have permanent transition > trackers[1], so they basically continuously rebuild. I want to > avoid this at all

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:48 +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] > That's false. Debian is leading the effort on reproducible builds  > that many other projects (including Fedora) have joined, and a  > large chunk of packages is already reproducible[1]. > It's actually quite the

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:40:34 Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 00:47:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 23:08:17 David Nadlinger via [...] > > Also, what are we even looking to distribute in debian? I would > > have thought

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:42:13 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:03 +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: […] Nah, there are several options here, one would simply be to tell people not to use the distro packages with anything but the default D compiler

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:38 +, Gerald via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Looking into Rust and Cargo Debian packaging, it looks like they  > are looking to go with source packages to work around the ABI  > issue: > > "Because Rust doesn't have a stable shared-library ABI, and we  > don't want to

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 00:47:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Monday, April 10, 2017 23:08:17 David Nadlinger via [...] Also, what are we even looking to distribute in debian? I would have thought that the normal thing to do would be to build with dub, in which case, having the

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:03 +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > Nah, there are several options here, one would simply be to tell  > people not to use the distro packages with anything but the  > default D compiler used in the respective Debian release. > Go apparently tells

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

Looking into Rust and Cargo Debian packaging, it looks like they are looking to go with source packages to work around the ABI issue: "Because Rust doesn't have a stable shared-library ABI, and we don't want to rebuild every Rust library package for every architecture every time we upload a

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:43:04 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:27:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: The next problem is that dmd occasionally changes the interface to the D runtime. […] I also do not know how the gdc/lds druntime interfaces differ. Just to make

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 11:55 +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > That's the problem I would like to see addressed (but given  > Walter's comment, it won't be feasible to resolve it in the near  > future). > We could simply do away with "don't use distro packages for your  > D

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:33:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 4/10/2017 6:08 AM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: I also want to stress that having a single C++ library like Boost compiled into stuff and rolling dependency transitions when its API/ABI changes with a major release is less of a

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:27:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 4/10/2017 5:59 AM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: You need to see here that D is not the center of the world and we will need to make it work nicely with the rest of the system. The technical policies work for everything else, so there

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:08:17 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 17:27:28 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: That's why I have been writing a lot of Makefiles and Meson build definitions lately. It seems like doing so without having a closer look at the realities of D

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:11:10 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:36:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: All the regression fixes and none of the bugs! The current situation is that it should be link-compatible with current upstream/stable. Enough so that when someone

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:36:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 10 April 2017 at 23:52, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 20:43:06 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: Master sports Phobos 2.071. Someone will have to see whether latter

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:26:46 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 13:20:00 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: This has worked nicely for every language. If you don't have templates in your API or don't change the templates between releases, you can survive with one

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:15:53 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 17:50:08 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: I am reading release notes, so we rebuilt dependencies of LDC - (I assume you mean reverse dependencies.) […] But since no bugs were reported, I assume no issues

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 20:11:28 UTC, Wyatt wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 18:46:31 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Hmm. I guess there's no easy way to make dmd/ldc emit dependencies with modified SONAMEs? So yeah, you're right, every software that depends on said libraries would have to

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

I apologize in advance for the large amount of mail that will likely follow, but I want to address all comments. On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 18:46:31 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: [...] One issue, though: if we standardize on compiling Debian packages with ldc, then what do we do with libraries that

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, April 10, 2017 23:08:17 David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d wrote: > IIRC OCaml is also very much a statically linked affair. And how > does Debian distribute Go binaries? Is there any issue with those > being linked statically? If not, let's just distribute D > libraries as source and

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 4/10/2017 4:43 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: [1] In fact, it looks like – for example with DMD moving to libunwind-based EH as well – the issue is slowly resolving itself anyway and at some point we'll merely have to sit down for a week and iron out the last few kinks. dmd is not moving to a

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 23:27:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: The next problem is that dmd occasionally changes the interface to the D runtime. […] I also do not know how the gdc/lds druntime interfaces differ. Just to make this very clear to everybody reading this thread: It's not even

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 11 April 2017 at 01:33, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 4/10/2017 6:08 AM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >> >> I also want to stress that having a single C++ library like Boost compiled >> into >> stuff and rolling dependency transitions when its API/ABI

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 11 April 2017 at 01:27, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > The next problem is that dmd occasionally changes the interface to the D > runtime. Or more accurately, with about every release. This has not been an > issue historically for us, as the two have

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 4/10/2017 6:08 AM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: I also want to stress that having a single C++ library like Boost compiled into stuff and rolling dependency transitions when its API/ABI changes with a major release is less of a problem than having the entire language give zero stability and

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 4/10/2017 1:43 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: This is an unfortunate distribution problem, things would be different if GCC were more like a library. It's not like anyone is helping me with the push. I am ultimately the one who is doing the tens of thousands of lines of code

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 4/10/2017 5:59 AM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: You need to see here that D is not the center of the world and we will need to make it work nicely with the rest of the system. The technical policies work for everything else, so there is nothing that really justifies an exception for D here (if 10%

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Recompiling the dependency-chain of a software from source when compiling a package using the "right" compiler and statically adding the code is forbidden by distro policy. Yet, from what I could find after a brief search, the

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 17:27:28 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: That's why I have been writing a lot of Makefiles and Meson build definitions lately. It seems like doing so without having a closer look at the realities of D software (no stable ABI, etc.) might not have been the best use of

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 10 April 2017 at 23:52, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 20:43:06 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> Master sports Phobos 2.071. Someone will have to see whether latter >> versions can be built using it. > > > … and some weird

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 13:20:00 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: This has worked nicely for every language. If you don't have templates in your API or don't change the templates between releases, you can survive with one library for a long time. But the vast majority of D libraries _do_ have

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 17:50:08 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: I am reading release notes, so we rebuilt dependencies of LDC - (I assume you mean reverse dependencies.) […] But since no bugs were reported, I assume no issues are present :-) So do we need to put a reminder about the ABI

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 20:43:06 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: Master sports Phobos 2.071. Someone will have to see whether latter versions can be built using it. … and some weird Frankensteinian mix of several frontend versions, I take it, maybe enough to build Phobos, but not necessarily

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 10 April 2017 at 19:50, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 16:58:05 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote: >> >> On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 13:20:00 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >>> >>> >>> Btw, at time we are just ignore the ABI issues, and

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 10 April 2017 at 19:48, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 16:12:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> [...] >> Everyone should follow GDC's ABI, rather than trying to mimic DMD calling >> convention. ;-) > > > GDC is working very

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 18:46:31 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Hmm. I guess there's no easy way to make dmd/ldc emit dependencies with modified SONAMEs? So yeah, you're right, every software that depends on said libraries would have to explicitly depend on a different SONAME depending on what

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 4/10/2017 8:11 AM, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: 3) Will DMD support more architectures in the near future? How should the architecture issue be handled? This can be definitively answered as "no",

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 06:12:26PM +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 17:29:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:40:12AM +, Matthias Klumpp via > > Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > > > [...] > > > If we do that, we will run into the D

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 17:29:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:40:12AM +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] [...] If we do that, we will run into the D ABI trap: Libraries compiled with compiler X can not be used from software compiled with D compiler

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 16:58:05 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 13:20:00 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Btw, at time we are just ignore the ABI issues, and surprisingly nothing broke yet, indicating that ABI breakage isn't very common or not affecting commonly used

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 16:12:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: [...] Everyone should follow GDC's ABI, rather than trying to mimic DMD calling convention. ;-) GDC is working very well, and using it would actually be the natural choice for us as GCC is the default compiler. However, there are

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 14:33:34 UTC, qznc wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: 1) Is there some perspective on D getting a defined ABI that works with all major D compilers? 2) What would the D community recommend on how to deal with the ABI issues

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:40:12AM +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > Naturally, when the reference compiler is available in Debian, we > would compile everything with that, as it is the development focus and > the thing many people test with. > > We do, however, have quite a

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 14:21:43 UTC, Gerald wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: There are a two issues though that we will be facing in Debian soon, and I would like to get some opinion and maybe perspective on from the D community on them. First I

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 15:11:01 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: 3) Will DMD support more architectures in the near future? How should the architecture issue be handled? This can be definitively answered as "no",

[OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 13:20:00 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Btw, at time we are just ignore the ABI issues, and surprisingly nothing broke yet, indicating that ABI breakage isn't very common or not affecting commonly used interfaces much. One big ABI change was in 2.071:

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On 10 April 2017 at 15:20, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 13:07:22 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: >> >> On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 12:59:37 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Who came up with those policies and decided that

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: 3) Will DMD support more architectures in the near future? How should the architecture issue be handled? This can be definitively answered as "no", https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15108

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: 1) Is there some perspective on D getting a defined ABI that works with all major D compilers? 2) What would the D community recommend on how to deal with the ABI issues currently? A Linux distribution is a bunch of tightly

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: There are a two issues though that we will be facing in Debian soon, and I would like to get some opinion and maybe perspective on from the D community on them. First I would like to say thank you for all the work you did in

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 12:59:58 UTC, qznc wrote: [...] How do Debian and C++ go along? There is no ABI compatibility between GCC and Clang afaik. Clang offers compatibility for most basic features. There are some ABI compatibility issues though and you find them reported in the

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Hi there! [...] If we do that, we will run into the D ABI trap: Libraries compiled with compiler X can not be used from software compiled with D compiler Y. There is actually no ABI stability guarantee even between DMD releases.

Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 13:07:22 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 12:59:37 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Who came up with those policies and decided that they apply to D? Because I really don't think they should. [...] You need to see here that D is not the center

  1   2   >