Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

2017-04-11 Thread Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d 

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 18:14:40 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:03:27 UTC, Matthias Klumpp 
wrote:
On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:15:53 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:
So do we need to put a reminder about the ABI being unstable 
into set of every release notes to make sure we won't get 
angry bug reports once users actually build their own D code 
against your packages? ;)


Nah, there are several options here, one would simply be to 
tell people not to use the distro packages with anything but 
the default D compiler used in the respective Debian release.


So as long as one sticks to packages in the official apt repos, 
all the libraries are guaranteed to be built with the 
distributed compiler as well?


Yes. Unfortunately there will be three of them which aren't 
compatible with each other, so we will kind of have to settle 
with one as default.


When you mentioned that you'd read the release notes regarding 
the ABI change, I got the impression that you had to manually 
rebuild the world for that to happen – hence my tongue-in-cheek 
remark about reminding you to do this in the release notes.


Well, it's a matter of telling the build admins or making a 
proper transition package (doesn't exit yet for D), but yeah, 
technically we'd need to rebuild all D stuff on ABI changes.

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

2017-04-11 Thread David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d 

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:03:27 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:15:53 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
So do we need to put a reminder about the ABI being unstable 
into set of every release notes to make sure we won't get 
angry bug reports once users actually build their own D code 
against your packages? ;)


Nah, there are several options here, one would simply be to 
tell people not to use the distro packages with anything but 
the default D compiler used in the respective Debian release.


So as long as one sticks to packages in the official apt repos, 
all the libraries are guaranteed to be built with the distributed 
compiler as well?


When you mentioned that you'd read the release notes regarding 
the ABI change, I got the impression that you had to manually 
rebuild the world for that to happen – hence my tongue-in-cheek 
remark about reminding you to do this in the release notes.


Otherwise, you might get lucky as far as the distributed 
applications are concerned (i.e. happen not to hit any ABI 
issues), but users might still be hosed when it comes to their 
own code.


 — David

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

2017-04-11 Thread Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d 
On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:48 +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
> That's false. Debian is leading the effort on reproducible builds 
> that many other projects (including Fedora) have joined, and a 
> large chunk of packages is already reproducible[1].
> It's actually quite the opposite: Build systems downloading 
> random stuff from the internet make the system more likely to 
> produce different build results.

You are closer the that community that I am and so have better
knowledge there. My comment was really reflecting the cant about the OS
packages.

> But in any case, the primary use for Debian packages is to be 
> used by the distribution.

Where Debian and Fedora provide applications written in Go they will be
statically linked. So is the use case that everything used to create
the application has to be packaged?

> [1]: 
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/reproducible.html
-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

2017-04-11 Thread Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d 

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 12:42:13 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:03 +, Matthias Klumpp via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:



[…]
Nah, there are several options here, one would simply be to 
tell

people not to use the distro packages with anything but the
default D compiler used in the respective Debian release.
Go apparently tells people not to use Debian-shipped go code in
their own projects at all.


The vendoring systems that Go folk have invented are 
effectively mandatory for projects that want reproducible 
builds, and using platform specific code is not feasible. It 
suprises me that Debian and Fedora are going flat out trying to 
package Go stuff.


That's false. Debian is leading the effort on reproducible builds 
that many other projects (including Fedora) have joined, and a 
large chunk of packages is already reproducible[1].
It's actually quite the opposite: Build systems downloading 
random stuff from the internet make the system more likely to 
produce different build results.


But in any case, the primary use for Debian packages is to be 
used by the distribution.


[1]: 
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/reproducible.html

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

2017-04-11 Thread Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d 
On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:03 +, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> 
[…]
> Nah, there are several options here, one would simply be to tell 
> people not to use the distro packages with anything but the 
> default D compiler used in the respective Debian release.
> Go apparently tells people not to use Debian-shipped go code in 
> their own projects at all.

The vendoring systems that Go folk have invented are effectively
mandatory for projects that want reproducible builds, and using
platform specific code is not feasible. It suprises me that Debian and
Fedora are going flat out trying to package Go stuff.

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

2017-04-11 Thread Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d 

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:15:53 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 17:50:08 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:

I am reading release notes, so we rebuilt dependencies of LDC -


(I assume you mean reverse dependencies.)

[…] But since no bugs were reported, I assume no issues are 
present :-)


So do we need to put a reminder about the ABI being unstable 
into set of every release notes to make sure we won't get angry 
bug reports once users actually build their own D code against 
your packages? ;)


Nah, there are several options here, one would simply be to tell 
people not to use the distro packages with anything but the 
default D compiler used in the respective Debian release.
Go apparently tells people not to use Debian-shipped go code in 
their own projects at all.

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

2017-04-10 Thread David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d 

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 17:50:08 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:

I am reading release notes, so we rebuilt dependencies of LDC -


(I assume you mean reverse dependencies.)

[…] But since no bugs were reported, I assume no issues are 
present :-)


So do we need to put a reminder about the ABI being unstable into 
set of every release notes to make sure we won't get angry bug 
reports once users actually build their own D code against your 
packages? ;)


 — David

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

2017-04-10 Thread Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d 
On 10 April 2017 at 19:50, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d
 wrote:
> On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 16:58:05 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 13:20:00 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Btw, at time we are just ignore the ABI issues, and surprisingly nothing
>>> broke yet, indicating that ABI breakage isn't very common or not affecting
>>> commonly used interfaces much.
>>
>>
>> One big ABI change was in 2.071:
>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15644. And it involved interfaces.
>> ;-)
>> Nothing broke because of that?
>
>
> I am reading release notes, so we rebuilt dependencies of LDC - I have no
> idea about GDC-depending D code though. But since no bugs were reported, I
> assume no issues are present :-)

That change is in gdc-7.x - so still in Debian unstable.

Re: [OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

2017-04-10 Thread Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d 

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 16:58:05 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 13:20:00 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:


Btw, at time we are just ignore the ABI issues, and 
surprisingly nothing broke yet, indicating that ABI breakage 
isn't very common or not affecting commonly used interfaces 
much.


One big ABI change was in 2.071: 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15644. And it involved 
interfaces. ;-)

Nothing broke because of that?


I am reading release notes, so we rebuilt dependencies of LDC - I 
have no idea about GDC-depending D code though. But since no bugs 
were reported, I assume no issues are present :-)

[OT] Re: The D ecosystem in Debian with free-as-in-freedom DMD

2017-04-10 Thread Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d 

On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 13:20:00 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:


Btw, at time we are just ignore the ABI issues, and 
surprisingly nothing broke yet, indicating that ABI breakage 
isn't very common or not affecting commonly used interfaces 
much.


One big ABI change was in 2.071: 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15644. And it involved 
interfaces. ;-)

Nothing broke because of that?

cheers,
  Johan