On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Michel Fortin" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > On 2011-06-28 15:39:42 -0400, Walter Bright <[email protected]> > > said: > > > >> On 6/28/2011 12:13 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > >>> Since most of the applications and most the libraries (basically all > >>> that ships > >>> with Mac OS X) are universal there's usually no problem of > >>> running/building both > >>> 32 and 64bit software. > >> > >> I'll explain the motivation for 64 bit only DMD binaries: > >> > >> 1. It cuts the testing time in half. This is a significant deal for me, > >> as adding another hour to the test cycle slows things down a lot. > >> > >> 2. It speeds downloading the dmd package. > >> > >> The only reason to have a 32 bit binary is if there are x86 Macs 10.5 or > >> later that are incapable of running 64 bit code. > > > > Well, you could ship the next DMD version 64-bit only and of you get > > complains you bring back the 32-bit version as a universal binary. > > > > But you'll definitely rule out users of Apple's early Intel computers. I > > think the last Apple model with a 32-bit CPU was the "Mac Mini (Late > > 2006)", which was replaced mid 2007 with a Core 2 Duo model. > > > > As for increasing the download speed, you could try one of these too: > > > > * separate per-OS packages > > * separate source package > > * separate documentation package > > * faster server > > * use 7z > > Using 7z instead of zip or tarballs has shrunk the size of my packaged > Goldie releases down to roughly one-quarter the size of a zip or tar.bz2 > (Yes, ~75% decrease is size). Of course, that's probably an extreme case, > but I just tried making a 7z of DMD 2.053, and it came out to just under > 9MB > (vs just over 15MB for the official zip release), so fairly close to half > the size. Still pretty damn good. > > And I really see no reason why any programmer shouldn't have a 7z-capable > extractor these days. Heck, it's pretty typical on Linux, and it's built > into WinRar. Zip and tarballs are like MP3's: They're still everywhere, but > only because of inertia, not because of any inherent merit, of which there > really isn't any. 7z is like moving to Vorbis (Except that I think 7z > support is probably more common than Vorbis support, which is unfortunate > for Vorbis fans like me, but that's even more OT...). > > > Have you tried xz on Linux? I think WinRar supports it on Windows, but I haven't checked in a while.
