Nobody would care if the download was fast. :) I always get around ~100-150KB/sec with downloads from digitalmars.com, even though I can easily reach 0.5Mb/sec on other websites.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:52 AM, chmod+x <[email protected]> wrote: > chmod+x Wrote: > >> dsimcha Wrote: >> >> > == Quote from Jesse Phillips ([email protected])'s article >> > > Lutger Wrote: >> > > > You need the i686 versions of some packages, probably start with >> > > > libgcc (yum >> > > > install libgcc.i686) and glibc, I don't remember which exactly are >> > > > required. I >> > > > have dmd running on 64 bit fedora just fine, it can work. There is >> > > > also a 64-bit >> > > > dmd in the making which should solve all those problems. >> > > Based on a previous post by Walter, it sounds like he is working on just >> > > the >> > code generation for 64bit and does not see a need to make the compiler 64 >> > bit itself. >> > >> > The compiler already has been compilable as a 64-bit binary for months. >> > IMHO, >> > though, Walter should release a 64-bit pre-compiled binary to make life >> > easy for >> > ppl with 64-bit installs. >> >> Another source of misery are the contents of the dmd zip file. Every time >> you need to set +x flag for the executable. This is so ridiculous. Does the >> Creator accept one bit binary patches to the distributions to make the >> solution a reality? It's open source: >> >> unzip dmdzip.zip >> chmod +x executables >> zip -r dmdzip * > > Okey, the binary patch is actually 349 bytes. A repackaged dmd is also 523737 > bytes smaller (dmd 2.048, repackaged with 7z). That would save 5% in > bandwidth cost and download time. Nobody cares. >
