Al 27/06/10 18:11, En/na Jesse Phillips ha escrit:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:23:38 +0200, Jordi Sayol i Salomó wrote:
With this sctructure, others packages can interact nicely with dmd now
(one package) and in the future, because them will spect the
"dmd.conf.manager" script on dmd package, and this do not change after
split dmd.
My few comments.
I think dmd should be packaged as dmd-2. At least for a Debian repo I
couldn't find any way to store two versions for the same package.
well, if we follow this rule, just one dmd v1.xxx release and dmd v2.xxx
release can be installed at same time. Otherwise dmd v.2.xxx is still dmd,
don't dmd2 program. So, if You think that is interesting to have more than one
dmd release at same time, then the solution is to create packages with the name
dmd-{version}, and install them in a unique {version} dir. With this, You will
be able to install every dmd release.
But the problem here is for packages depending on dmd, like gtkd. A solution can be have
available both, "dmd" and "dmd-{version} packages.
Isn't Phobos more source than headers though, I mean the only "header" it
has is object.di and I don't even know why.
Is it important to have a compiler specific -dev? I realize compilers
don't like getting along, but what happens when phobos becomes a shared
library? I thought object files were suppose to be more "universal,"
doesn't libc6 work when using Digital Mars C++ compilers or does it have
its own?
Until I know, libc6 only links with gcc. dmd linux uses ld (from gcc) to link
and probably Digital Mars C++ do too.
The static libraires are only useful at compile time and there are 3 d
compilers, so statics libs are just for one compiler and for dev, this is the
reason.
Otherwise the tree looks fine.
I want to continue discussing about dmd packaging, but i don't know if this
list is the appropriate place to do it.
Is there a better place?
Many thanks,
--
Jordi Sayol
