On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:01:33AM +0300, Manu wrote: > On 17 October 2012 00:00, H. S. Teoh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 04:37:32PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:48:54 +0200 Jordi Sayol <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Al 16/10/12 17:17, En/na Manu ha escrit: > > [...] > > > > > Can DMD just be fixed to include [local/]/include/d in it's > > > > > default search paths? I presume GDC and LDC already look > > > > > there? > > > > > > > > Linux dmd will not include /usr/include/d path by default to > > > > avoid conflicts with ldc1 (tango) "object.di" incompatibility, > > > > and I recommend you to not use this path for that reason. > > > > > > > > > > Then we can use '/usr/include/d2'. Problem solved ;) > > > > I propose /usr/include/d/${version}/. It will make it possible for > > multiple versions of dmd to coexist, as well as eliminate version > > incompatibility problems (or at least make them very unlikely). > > > > Mixing everything in /usr/include/d (or /usr/include/d2) with the > > fact that dmd releases have been incompatible with older > > druntime/phobos is just asking for trouble. > > > > I don't really care about the compilers own drunntime/phobos. I want > to know where to install 3rd party libs. They should be identical no > matter what compiler is compiling them. C has /usr/[local/]include/
I think there was some talk recently about standardizing on /usr/include/d (or /usr/include/d2). But I don't know if a clear decision was made. T -- Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Use your hands...
