On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:08:13 +0300 Manu <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17 October 2012 12:28, Nick Sabalausky < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:56:02 -0700 > > "H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > How else would you have multiple versions of the same lib, though? > > > They can't all live in the same place since files will conflict. > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I see only two realistic possibilities: > > > > A. Forget about system-wide lib installation and pass -I... to the > > compiler for each lib you're using. Kind of a pain but... > > > > B. Wait for a proper D package manager. > > > > Personally, I choose "A", at least for the time being ;) > > > > What about C: Nominate a place, just like C does?? > I don't see the problem. Where is the essential difference from > system-wide installed C libraries? >
I was referring to the "How else would you have multiple versions of the same lib". If all libs are put into the same directory, then you can't have multiple versions of the same one without giving each version a different name. I wouldn't want to have to search/replace all "import foobar-1-0;" with "import foobar-1-11;" everytime I upgrade a lib. I guess what you could do is have a directory structure like this: /usr/include/d2/foobar/1.0/foobar.d /usr/include/d2/foobar/1.7/foobar.d /usr/include/d2/foobar/2.1/foobar.d But then you'd still have to use -I... when you import anything, which removes some of the benefit of having one standard installation directory for libs. But I guess that is still an improvement over just not having any standard install directory.
