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 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 really anything else. If you're > > looking to package an application that was written in D, then > > that becomes another question, but then if you just statically > > link it, the ABI compatibility problem goes away as does any > > need to package any D library dependencies. > > You will have static-library packages which have the exact same > ABI issues shared libraries have. > And yeah, this is obviously about stuff being built with D > compilers in the distro, such as Tilix, BioD, AppStream Generator > and all future things which might emerge and be useful to have in > the OS.
My point was that there really isn't a reason to package D libraries in the distro. ABI compatibility makes including D libraries in a distro problematic, and dub takes care dependencies for you, making it completely unnecessary to include any D libraries in a distro. Now, there may be a reason to include a D _program_ in a distro, but with a D program, you can just build it with dub and statically link in its D libraries so that they don't need to be part of the distro. And if we go that route, you pretty much avoid this whole mess. - Jonathan M Davis