Re: d-apt update

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

New d-apt dmd deb packages released (ver. 2.077.1-0.1)

This release fix these problems:

- Move rdmd from "dmd-tools" to "dmd-compiler"
- Add "dmd-bin (<< 2.077.1-0)" at "Conflicts:" and "Replaces:" fields on 
"dmd-compiler" and "dmd-tools" deb packages, to avoid upgrade conflicts.

Jordi

Re: d-apt update

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 11/12/17 a les 23:02, Manu ha escrit:
> I would strongly suggest the rdmd be included in dmd-bin rather than 
> dmd-tools.

Yes, You're right and will be as you say on next dmd release. But will be in 
dmd-compiler rather than in the deprecated dmd-bin.

Re: d-apt update

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 09/12/17 a les 14:32, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
> I consider rdmd to be part of the compiler in a way that I don't consider the 
> other dmd-tools...

You're right. I'll fix on next dmd release.

Jordi

d-apt update

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

d-apt  release dmd v2.077.1

In this release, d-apt splits "dmd-bin" deb package into "dmd-compiler" (the 
command line compiler) and "dmd-tools" (includes: dumpobj, obj2asm, rdmd, 
ddemangle and dustmite).

Best regards,
Jordi.

Re: Official dub packages for Debian and Ubuntu

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 15/04/16 a les 19:52, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce ha 
escrit:
> Awesomne, Jordi. I recently got a notice that the dmd compiler has been 
> updated by Ubuntu's package manager. Clicked, got it, all went smoothly. 
> Should I take it we owe all of that to you? -- Andrei

I think so :-)
Many thanks Andrei, and all d-apt users.

Re: Official dub packages for Debian and Ubuntu

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 15/04/16 a les 01:09, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 at 18:42:49 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
>> El 14/04/16 a les 17:54, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d-announce ha 
>> escrit:
>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 at 13:28:29 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I think with "property" you mean "virtual package". See 
>>> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-virtual
>>> Basically, the dmd package needs a "Provides: d-compiler" line, then it 
>>> should be able to satisfy the dependencies of the dub package.
>>
>> Thanks. What happen is multiple packages, all of them not installed, sets 
>> "Provides: d-compiler"? Which one is installed?
> 
> I think in that case the (alphabetically) first real package is installed. 
> This is an uncommon case though, usually when virtual packages are used, a 
> default dependency is provided (so you have "default | virtual").
> 

I'll include "Provides: d-compiler" on dlang dmd deb package and d-apt dmd-bin 
deb too. Many thanks!

Re: Official dub packages for Debian and Ubuntu

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 14/04/16 a les 17:54, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 at 13:28:29 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
>> El 12/04/16 a les 14:26, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d-announce ha 
>> escrit:
>>>> I assume that the DMD package from dlang, or better d-apt, sets the d- 
>>>> compiler property. Should dmd be prefered if it is present?
>>>
>>> I think so, since when installing it from non-free 3rd-party sources, the 
>>> user made an explicit choice for DMD.
>>> In terms of packaging, the packaging doesn't really care, any D compiler 
>>> will satisfy the requirements of the dub package.
>>
>>
>> No, dmd deb packages from dlang and d-apt do not set any d-compiler 
>> property. Where should it be set?
> 
> I think with "property" you mean "virtual package". See 
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-virtual
> Basically, the dmd package needs a "Provides: d-compiler" line, then it 
> should be able to satisfy the dependencies of the dub package.

Thanks. What happen is multiple packages, all of them not installed, sets 
"Provides: d-compiler"? Which one is installed?

Re: Official dub packages for Debian and Ubuntu

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 12/04/16 a les 14:26, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
>> I assume that the DMD package from dlang, or better d-apt, sets the d- 
>> compiler property. Should dmd be prefered if it is present?
> 
> I think so, since when installing it from non-free 3rd-party sources, the 
> user made an explicit choice for DMD.
> In terms of packaging, the packaging doesn't really care, any D compiler will 
> satisfy the requirements of the dub package.


No, dmd deb packages from dlang and d-apt do not set any d-compiler property. 
Where should it be set?

Re: Official dub packages for Debian and Ubuntu

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 11/04/16 a les 16:21, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
> As part of that work, the dub package an build management system is now 
> available in Debian, and I will ensure it works well.
> Additionally, it was possible to make dub available late in the Ubuntu 16.04 
> (Xenial) development cycle, so dub will also be part of the upcoming LTS 
> release of Ubuntu

This is a very good news!

> Co-maintainers[1] and feedback from the dub developers is very welcome, and I 
> hope this addition is useful for you.
[...]
> [1]: Especially from the d-apt people - helping with official Debian packages 
> is possible even if you're no Debian Developer / Maintainer. 

I'm the only one d-apt maintainer. 

About the d-apt dub deb package, they're built using binaries from 
 and do not compile anything.

How long will it take from a dub release until dub deb package will be 
available on the Debian stable repositories? And for Ubuntu?

Regards,
Jordi.

New deb packages on d-apt

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

d-apt has three new deb packages for Dfix, Dfmt and Dscanner.

$ sudo apt-get install dfix dfmt dscanner

d-apt 

Re: Release D 2.070.0

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 28/01/16 a les 23:36, Minas Mina via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 21:08:54 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> Glad to announce D 2.070.0
>>
>> http://dlang.org/download.html
>>
>> This release comes with the new std.experimental.ndslice, heavily expanded 
>> Windows bindings, and native exception handling on 64-bit linux. See the 
>> changelog for more details.
>>
>> http://dlang.org/changelog/2.070.0.html
>>
>> -Martin
> 
> When trying to install on Ubuntu 15.10 x64, I get this:
> http://imgur.com/L4ozgC1
> 
> I didn't proceed with the installation as I don't want any possible broken 
> things.
> 

Same problem on Ubuntu 15.10 x32.


$ lintian -c dmd_2.070.0-0_i386.deb
Can't close(GLOB(0x9a83b5c)) filehandle: '' at 
/usr/share/lintian/helpers/coll/objdump-info-helper line 192
command failed with error code 123 at 
/usr/share/lintian/collection/objdump-info line 79.
warning: collect info objdump-info about package dmd failed
warning: skipping check of binary package dmd


the command exit status is 2


on lintina manpages:


EXIT STATUS
   0   No policy violations or major errors detected.  (There may have been 
warnings, though.)

   1   Policy violations or major errors detected.

   2   Lintian run-time error. An error message is sent to stderr.


So this is not a dmd deb package issue but Ubuntu 15.10 lintian issue. Please 
report it as a bug.

You can safely install dmd deb package on your Ubuntu system.

Regards,
Jordi

Re: Beta D 2.068.0-b2

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 26/07/15 a les 15:55, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
 BTW, I'd like to phase out the fat 50-60MB combined zip, and add
 tar.xz/gz for linux/freebsd/osx.

Is it not better to use 7z format? It has more compression ratios than gz/bz2, 
and they can be easily handled on Windows.

Re: DMD 2.067.0 Programming Language Specifications

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 09/04/15 a les 08:26, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
 On 6 April 2015 at 14:04, Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce
 digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
 D Programming Language Specifications for dmd 2.067.0 in several formats, 
 available at:
 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/


 dlangspec-2.067.0.chm  --  (Microsoft Compiled HTML Help)

 dlangspec-2.067.0.epub  --  (Electronic Publication for e-book readers)

 dlangspec-2.067.0.mobi  --  (Mobipocket e-book for Kindle)

 dlangspec-2.067.0.pdf  --  (Portable Document Format)
 
 
 On at least the PDF documentation the text can be made smaller (it's a bit 
 big).
 
 Looks good though.
 

I'll try to adjust the building script to improve font size.

Thanks for using!

Re: DUB 0.9.23 released

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 06/04/15 a les 10:21, Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
 The new version contains some important bug fixes for sub modules and 
 overridden string imports, as well as some other major fixes.

Congratulations for this new release!

Available for Debian/Ubuntu at http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

DMD 2.067.0 Programming Language Specifications

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

D Programming Language Specifications for dmd 2.067.0 in several formats, 
available at:
http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/


dlangspec-2.067.0.chm  --  (Microsoft Compiled HTML Help)

dlangspec-2.067.0.epub  --  (Electronic Publication for e-book readers)

dlangspec-2.067.0.mobi  --  (Mobipocket e-book for Kindle)

dlangspec-2.067.0.pdf  --  (Portable Document Format)

Re: Coedit alpha 11 released

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 21/01/15 a les 18:35, Basile Burg via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
 I'm glad to announce this new release of Coedit.

Congratulations for this new release!

Did you fix the use of DCD simultaneously with other D editors?

Re: d-apt source changed!

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 02/12/14 a les 07:41, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
 I do wonder though if d-apt is actually a bad idea as the main resource
 and we should package directly into Debian?

d-apt allows to instant update on dmd releases, not on Debian official 
repositories.

Anyway, packaging dmd directly into Debian is not a problem for me, d-apt will 
adapt to the conjuncture, can live together with an official Debian package, 
and if it should disappear, will do.

Push for it!

Re: d-apt source changed!

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 01/12/14 a les 23:23, Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
 On Sunday, 30 November 2014 at 02:20:04 UTC, Jordi Sayol via 
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 d-apt http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/ changed the distribution name from 
 dmd to d-apt.

 Download the last d-apt.list to update:
 $ sudo wget http://master.dl.sourceforge.net/project/d-apt/files/d-apt.list 
 -O /etc/apt/sources.list.d/d-apt.list

 The new distribution allows to install any deb package version available at 
 d-apt.
 i.e. dmd-bin deb package is available for versions 2.064.2, 2.065.0 and 
 2.066.1
 To install an old dmd version:
 $ sudo apt-get install dmd-bin=2.064.2-0 libphobos2-dev=2.064.2-0

 Legacy distribution will be disabled on dmd v2.067.0 release.
 
 That'll probably be handy at some point. Thanks for doing d-apt. I find it 
 very useful.

This already has been handy, at least for Maor Ben-Dayan who needed to 
downgrade dmd to version 2.065.0 to avoid some regression :-)

Thank you all to create this incredible compiler and the related tools. I only 
wrap them on d-apt.

Re: Coedit alpha 8 released

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Hello Basile,

I want to create new Coedit deb packages for d-apt 
http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/.

If you're interested too, please contact me on g.sayol at yahoo dot es

Regards,
Jordi

d-apt source changed!

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

d-apt http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/ changed the distribution name from dmd 
to d-apt.

Download the last d-apt.list to update:
$ sudo wget http://master.dl.sourceforge.net/project/d-apt/files/d-apt.list -O 
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/d-apt.list

The new distribution allows to install any deb package version available at 
d-apt.
i.e. dmd-bin deb package is available for versions 2.064.2, 2.065.0 and 
2.066.1
To install an old dmd version:
$ sudo apt-get install dmd-bin=2.064.2-0 libphobos2-dev=2.064.2-0

Legacy distribution will be disabled on dmd v2.067.0 release.

Re: DVM - D Version Manager 0.4.3

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 03/09/14 a les 08:10, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
 I only chose Debian because it's a stable/old system with a high chance of 
 being binary compatible with other distributions.

On Debian 7.6 64-bit I got this error:

$ dvm
dvm: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required 
by dvm)

libc6 on Debian 7.6 (stable) is v2.13.


On Debian testing:


$ dvm install 2.065.0
Fetching: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.zip
[] 50581/49347 KB

Installing: dmd-2.065.0
An unknown error occurred:
tango.core.Exception.IOException@/home/doob/development/d/tango/tango/core/Exception.d(59):
 /home/jordi/.dvm/bin/dmd-2.065.0 :: No such file or directory
...


After manually created this directory and properly install dmd 2.065.0:


$ dvm use 2.065.0
$ dmd
bash: dmd: command not found


What I'm doing wrong?

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DVM - D Version Manager 0.4.3

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Sorry, i forget to mention that on Debian testing, my desktop is Mate 
http://mate-desktop.org/

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DVM - D Version Manager 0.4.3

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 04/09/14 a les 22:17, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
 What I'm doing wrong?
 
 dvm install dvm

On Debian testing (mate desktop) without ~/.dvm dir, dmd still not found:

$ dvm install dvm
$ dvm install 2.065.0
Fetching: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.zip
[] 50581/49347 KB

Installing: dmd-2.065.0 
$ dvm use 2.065.0
$ dmd
bash: dmd: command not found 


BTW Is there a reason to mandatory copy dvm to ~/.dvm/bin directory?

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DVM - D Version Manager 0.4.3

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 05/09/14 a les 00:30, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
 On 9/4/2014 4:51 PM, Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 El 04/09/14 a les 22:17, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce ha 
 escrit:
 What I'm doing wrong?

 dvm install dvm

 On Debian testing (mate desktop) without ~/.dvm dir, dmd still not found:
 
 $ dvm install dvm
 $ dvm install 2.065.0
 Fetching: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.zip
 [] 50581/49347 KB

 Installing: dmd-2.065.0
 $ dvm use 2.065.0
 $ dmd
 bash: dmd: command not found
 

 BTW Is there a reason to mandatory copy dvm to ~/.dvm/bin directory?

 
 Hmm, may wanna check your .bashrc. Unless it's changed since last time I 
 looked, the Posix versions of dvm work by adding code to .bashrc which set up 
 dmd as an alias.
 
 Then again, I'm not sure that should matter if you're manually running dvm 
 use 
 
 Are you maybe not using bash?
 
 

GNU bash, version 4.3.24(1)-release (i586-pc-linux-gnu)

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB Bash Completion

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

El 07/07/14 12:58, Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d-announce ha escrit:
 Very nice, I'll try this out this later. If you don't mind, we should put 
 this into the DUB main repository and also get in touch with the package 
 maintainers to include it in the standard distribution.

I'm agree. I'll include it on deb packages as sun as it is in dub repository.

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: Tkd - Cross platform GUI toolkit based on Tcl/Tk

[Jordi Sayol via Digitalmars-d-announce]

There are new deb packages for TkD v1.0.3 beta, available at 
http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

To install:
$ sudo apt-get install libtkd-dev libtkd-doc

To compile the TkD example (static linking):
$ dmd `pkg-config --cflags --libs tkd-static` 
-J/usr/share/libtkd-doc/example/media/ /usr/share/libtkd-doc/example/example.d

To compile the TkD example (shared linking):
$ dmd -release `pkg-config --cflags --libs tkd` 
-J/usr/share/libtkd-doc/example/media/ /usr/share/libtkd-doc/example/example.d

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: How I Came to Write D -- by Walter Bright

[Jordi Sayol]

El 11/04/14 12:10, Walter Bright ha escrit:

 but hey, now we have D.
 
 Yeah, I like D far better than Java.

+1000

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DFL can be used by D2.065

[Jordi Sayol]

Is there somebody maintaining the GTK branch of DFL?

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: Happy Tenth Birthday, GDC!

[Jordi Sayol]

El 23/03/14 03:05, Andrei Alexandrescu ha escrit:
 Hello everyone,
 
 
 Today GDC celebrates 10 years of existence.
 
 Please join me in expressing sincere congratulations to everyone who 
 contributed to the project. I would like to emphasize that GDC is a key 
 component of D's present and future success, and I am looking forward to more 
 awesome progress from Iain, Johannes and hopefully an ever-growing gang!
 
 
 Happy Birthday!
 
 Andrei
 

+1

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.065.0

[Jordi Sayol]

El 24/02/14 09:45, Andrew Edwards ha escrit:
 The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available.

Congratulations for this new dmd release!

New deb packages and dlangspec in several formats available at 
http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.21

[Jordi Sayol]

Congratulations for this new dub release.

Already uploaded new dub deb packages for this release at 
http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.065 beta 3

[Jordi Sayol]

El 07/02/14 16:56, Martin Nowak ha escrit:
 On 02/03/2014 07:34 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-65_2.065.0-b3-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-65_2.065.0-b3-0_i386.deb
 
 Do we need separate libphobos2 debian packages?
 Until now I've never seen them on the website 
 (http://dlang.org/download.html) and AFAIK libphobs2.* is already in the dmd 
 package.
 

That's correct, libphobos2.* is in the all-in-one dmd deb package. If a program 
compiled against libphobos2.so.*.*.* should be run in a third computer, you 
need this library on that system.

libphobos2-63, libphobos2-64, etc. only contains the phobos shared library of 
that version for run-time purposes only.

The version is included on their names allowing to install multiple phobos 
shared libraries version at same time.

As dmd package contains this library to, the same version of libphobos2-?? and 
dmd deb packages conflicts, so they cannot be installed together.

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DCD 0.3.0-beta1 and DScanner 0.1.0-beta1

[Jordi Sayol]

New DCD and Textadept deb packages on d-apt.

http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DCD 0.3.0-beta1 and DScanner 0.1.0-beta1

[Jordi Sayol]

Including basic dmd phobos druntime/import when dcd-server is loaded, in my 
system takes about 10 seconds, and much more if I add i.e. gtkd (about 6 
minutes!).

Is it possible to include them to the dcd-server cache by demand? This should 
be much faster.

i.e. dcd-server can read only the module names in the included paths at start 
up, and then load everything else when a specific module is imported in the 
source code. When a source file is open by the editor, add its imports to 
update dcd-server cache. If imported module has public imports, these modules 
should be loaded too.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DCD 0.3.0-beta1 and DScanner 0.1.0-beta1

[Jordi Sayol]

El 05/02/14 19:18, Brian Schott ha escrit:
 If the server takes 6 minutes to do anything, that's a bug. Can you file this 
 please?

https://github.com/Hackerpilot/DCD/issues/108

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DCD 0.3.0-beta1 and DScanner 0.1.0-beta1

[Jordi Sayol]

Adding gtkd2 sources to dcd-server takes more than 6 minutes. Is this correct?

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DCD 0.3.0-beta1 and DScanner 0.1.0-beta1

[Jordi Sayol]

New Dscanner v0.1.0-beta2 deb package available at d-apt:

http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 26/01/14 16:23, Dejan Lekic ha escrit:
 On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 08:25:05 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 El 22/01/14 02:06, Andrew Edwards ha escrit:
 On 1/21/14, 6:02 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 El 21/01/14 23:29, Brad Anderson ha escrit:
  #.###.~b#  == 2.065.b1  // beta
  #.###.~rc# == 2.065.rc1 // release candidate
  #.###.0   == 2.065.0   // initial release
  #.###.#   == 2.065.1   // hotfix

 On Debian, 2.065.rc1 is bigger than 2.065.0, so if 
 dmd_2.065.rc1-0_amd64.deb is installed and you try to upgrade to 
 dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb, system will answer something like You have 
 installed a newer version.

 No problem if these deb packages are for internal use and test, but not 
 for a public download.

 $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.065.0 gt 2.065.rc1  echo Bigger || 
 echo Not bigger


 Apparently the same problem exists on FreeBSD. The first solution that 
 comes to mind is to prefix the qualifiers for betas and release candidates 
 with a tilde. As such:

 2.065~b1
 2.065~rc1

 or:

 2.065.~b1
 2.065.~rc1

 This solution works on both Ubuntu and FreeBSD but I'm not sure it is the 
 right one. Suggestions are welcomed.

 I prefer:

 2.65~b1
 2.65~rc1

 because 2.65.0 and 2.65 are bigger than 2.65~rc1, regardless if 
 qualifier number is present or not in final release version.

 I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version 
 string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc.
 So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning 
 scheme:

 #.#~b#  == 2.65~b1  // beta
 #.#~rc# == 2.65~rc1 // release candidate
 #.#.#   == 2.65.0   // initial release
 #.#.#   == 2.65.1   // hotfix
 
 I do not like the tilda scheme above. Because it does not conform to the 
 major.minor.micro-qualifier scheme.
 
 Before I propose another scheme, let me list some assumptions:
 
 1) We will never have more than 3 release candidates.
 2) Same goes for betas. You rarely see more than two beta releases for 
 certain upcoming release of a product.
 
 Therefore I propose the following (if it is compatible with FreeBSD and 
 Debian) simple solution. We simply move beta and rc into the qualifier.
 
 So, we have:
 2.065.0 (release)
 2.065.0-rc2 (release candidate)
 2.065.0-b1 (beta one)
 
 This makes more sense IMHO.
 


This scheme was already proposed by Leandro Lucarella, and I like it.
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/lbmru9$290b$1...@digitalmars.com#post-20140122001903.GE23332:40llucax.com.ar
It only differs by leading zero on minor number, which can be cleanly removed.

Anyway, tilde is still mandatory on Debian packages due to upgrade reasons, so 
we can apply the Leandro's solution too:
s/-/~/

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 26/01/14 21:59, Andrew Edwards ha escrit:
 On 1/26/14, 11:19 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 El 26/01/14 16:23, Dejan Lekic ha escrit:
 On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 08:25:05 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 El 22/01/14 02:06, Andrew Edwards ha escrit:
 On 1/21/14, 6:02 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 El 21/01/14 23:29, Brad Anderson ha escrit:
   #.###.~b#  == 2.065.b1  // beta
   #.###.~rc# == 2.065.rc1 // release candidate
   #.###.0   == 2.065.0   // initial release
   #.###.#   == 2.065.1   // hotfix

 On Debian, 2.065.rc1 is bigger than 2.065.0, so if 
 dmd_2.065.rc1-0_amd64.deb is installed and you try to upgrade to 
 dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb, system will answer something like You have 
 installed a newer version.

 No problem if these deb packages are for internal use and test, but not 
 for a public download.

 $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.065.0 gt 2.065.rc1  echo Bigger || 
 echo Not bigger


 Apparently the same problem exists on FreeBSD. The first solution that 
 comes to mind is to prefix the qualifiers for betas and release 
 candidates with a tilde. As such:

  2.065~b1
  2.065~rc1

 or:

  2.065.~b1
  2.065.~rc1

 This solution works on both Ubuntu and FreeBSD but I'm not sure it is the 
 right one. Suggestions are welcomed.

 I prefer:

 2.65~b1
 2.65~rc1

 because 2.65.0 and 2.65 are bigger than 2.65~rc1, regardless if 
 qualifier number is present or not in final release version.

 I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version 
 string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc.
 So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning 
 scheme:

 #.#~b#  == 2.65~b1  // beta
 #.#~rc# == 2.65~rc1 // release candidate
 #.#.#   == 2.65.0   // initial release
 #.#.#   == 2.65.1   // hotfix

 I do not like the tilda scheme above. Because it does not conform to the 
 major.minor.micro-qualifier scheme.

 Before I propose another scheme, let me list some assumptions:

 1) We will never have more than 3 release candidates.
 2) Same goes for betas. You rarely see more than two beta releases for 
 certain upcoming release of a product.

 Therefore I propose the following (if it is compatible with FreeBSD and 
 Debian) simple solution. We simply move beta and rc into the qualifier.

 So, we have:
 2.065.0 (release)
 2.065.0-rc2 (release candidate)
 2.065.0-b1 (beta one)

 This makes more sense IMHO.



 This scheme was already proposed by Leandro Lucarella, and I like it.
 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/lbmru9$290b$1...@digitalmars.com#post-20140122001903.GE23332:40llucax.com.ar
 It only differs by leading zero on minor number, which can be cleanly 
 removed.

 Anyway, tilde is still mandatory on Debian packages due to upgrade reasons, 
 so we can apply the Leandro's solution too:
 s/-/~/

 Regards,

 
 Jordi, I need you to explain this. You wrote the scripts for the pkg 
 installers right? What happens when you pass a version number containing a 
 - to dmd_rpm.sh? I'll tell you:
 
 Building for target platforms: i386
 Building for target i386
 error: line 2: Illegal character '-' in: Version: 2.065.0-b2
 
 I initially changed the naming convention because of errors like these 
 cropping up all over your scripts. Change it to '~' and it craps out on 
 another one of your scrips for a different package. Multiple other
 
 My question is, what is the proper version scheme that fits all the systems 
 that you are trying to make these packages for? This one obviously does not 
 work for at lease one of them.

Andrew, the current deb/rpm building script version scheme is:

^[0-9].[0-9][0-9][0-9]$
or
^[0-9].[0-9][0-9][0-9].[0-9]+$


I'm waiting to know the final new dmd versioning scheme. As soon as it is 
stablished, I'll modify these scripts to allow them.

Of course if the new scheme contains *-b? or *-rc?, - will be replaced by 
~, for a correct package upgrade on Debian.

I don't know if this happens on rpm systems too. I'll investigate.

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 26/01/14 22:37, Andrew Edwards ha escrit:
 On 1/26/14, 4:20 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 El 26/01/14 21:59, Andrew Edwards ha escrit:

 Jordi, I need you to explain this. You wrote the scripts for the pkg 
 installers right? What happens when you pass a version number containing a 
 - to dmd_rpm.sh? I'll tell you:

  Building for target platforms: i386
  Building for target i386
  error: line 2: Illegal character '-' in: Version: 2.065.0-b2

 I initially changed the naming convention because of errors like these 
 cropping up all over your scripts. Change it to '~' and it craps out on 
 another one of your scrips for a different package. Multiple other

 My question is, what is the proper version scheme that fits all the systems 
 that you are trying to make these packages for? This one obviously does not 
 work for at lease one of them.

 Andrew, the current deb/rpm building script version scheme is:

 ^[0-9].[0-9][0-9][0-9]$
 or
 ^[0-9].[0-9][0-9][0-9].[0-9]+$

 
 I've modified the version scheme so the script does not have a problem 
 identifying the zip. It simply craps the bed when it reaches dmd_rpm.sh.
 


[...]
error: line 2: Illegal char '-' in: Version: 2.065.0-b2
-

rpm packages do not allows - on version.

I've pull-requested deb/rpm scripts to fix new dmd versioning scheme. Dash - 
is replaced by tilde ~ on deb/rpm packages version, and so on packages name.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/47

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 24/01/14 00:24, Brad Anderson ha escrit:
 On Thursday, 23 January 2014 at 13:29:31 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 On Thursday, 23 January 2014 at 06:50:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
 This of course is relying on the zip file getting uploaded to
 downloads.dlang.org.  You could use the digitalmars urls for
 betas, I suppose, since those don't end up on the download site
 anyway.  The url template is just a bit further down in the file.

 Please no manual steps. Is it possible to do this in the nsi script?
 
 Well, presumably Andrew will get access to upload to the download site at 
 some point soon and he's just use that instead of digitalmars's FTP and this 
 won't be a problem.
 
 The NSIS script already requires a bit of manual editing (basically just 
 updating the version number). I think I can probably figure out a way to do 
 away with that though (NSIS can pull definitions from a separate file and the 
 NSIS command line supports specifying definitions). I'll experiment with 
 these soon and see what I can do to allow it to be completely automated.
 

You can take a look on linux/win/installer.nsi that get version argument from 
linux/dmd_win.sh and therefore from command line.
 
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 22/01/14 02:06, Andrew Edwards ha escrit:
 On 1/21/14, 6:02 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 El 21/01/14 23:29, Brad Anderson ha escrit:
  #.###.~b#  == 2.065.b1  // beta
  #.###.~rc# == 2.065.rc1 // release candidate
  #.###.0   == 2.065.0   // initial release
  #.###.#   == 2.065.1   // hotfix

 On Debian, 2.065.rc1 is bigger than 2.065.0, so if 
 dmd_2.065.rc1-0_amd64.deb is installed and you try to upgrade to 
 dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb, system will answer something like You have 
 installed a newer version.

 No problem if these deb packages are for internal use and test, but not for 
 a public download.

 $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.065.0 gt 2.065.rc1  echo Bigger || echo 
 Not bigger

 
 Apparently the same problem exists on FreeBSD. The first solution that comes 
 to mind is to prefix the qualifiers for betas and release candidates with a 
 tilde. As such:
 
 2.065~b1
 2.065~rc1
 
 or:
 
 2.065.~b1
 2.065.~rc1
 
 This solution works on both Ubuntu and FreeBSD but I'm not sure it is the 
 right one. Suggestions are welcomed.

I prefer:

2.65~b1
2.65~rc1

because 2.65.0 and 2.65 are bigger than 2.65~rc1, regardless if 
qualifier number is present or not in final release version.

I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version 
string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc.
So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning 
scheme:

#.#~b#  == 2.65~b1  // beta
#.#~rc# == 2.65~rc1 // release candidate
#.#.#   == 2.65.0   // initial release
#.#.#   == 2.65.1   // hotfix

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 22/01/14 09:31, deadalnix ha escrit:
 On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 08:25:05 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 I prefer:

 2.65~b1
 2.65~rc1

 because 2.65.0 and 2.65 are bigger than 2.65~rc1, regardless if 
 qualifier number is present or not in final release version.

 I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version 
 string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc.
 So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning 
 scheme:

 #.#~b#  == 2.65~b1  // beta
 #.#~rc# == 2.65~rc1 // release candidate
 #.#.#   == 2.65.0   // initial release
 #.#.#   == 2.65.1   // hotfix
 
 Please, this has been discussed to death already. Nobody care what anybody 
 prefers. Unless you have an actual reason to ask for a format change (fit 
 better with current packaging systems for instance) please restrain yourself.
 

Please, if you don't like this proposed change based on a real problem on 
Debian and not on my prefers, refute it with arguments but do not tell me 
that I should keep quiet.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 21/01/14 23:29, Brad Anderson ha escrit:
 Please use the one in windows/dinstaller.nsi (I need to get some free time to 
 unify that with Jordi's windows installer in the linux folder).

Windows installer from Linux folder is out of the building process. The only 
one windows installer is in windows/ folder.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.065 beta 1 #2

[Jordi Sayol]

If we upgrade the version scheme, we can remove the initial zero too:

2.65.b1
2.65.rc1
2.65.0
2.65.1

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.20

[Jordi Sayol]

New dub v0.9.20 deb packages available at:

d-apt http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.20

[Jordi Sayol]

El 29/11/13 20:37, ilya-stromberg ha escrit:
 On Friday, 29 November 2013 at 19:15:13 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 New dub v0.9.20 deb packages available at:

 d-apt http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/
 
 Thank you.
 BTW, it would be great to have packages for previous DMD versions. You 
 already support it for `libphobos2-nn` and almost for all other packages.
 

libphobos2-nn and other packages ending with -nn contains the shared 
library necessary to run programs linked against them, so for this reason these 
packages have version on its name, allowing to install multiple versions of the 
same library.

Different case is dmd and development packages -dev. Debian packaging 
system do not allow to install multiple versions of the same package at same 
time.

i.e. dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb is newer version of dmd_2.063.2-0_amd64.deb, 
and upgrades it.
same with libphobos2-dev_2.064.2_amd64.deb, which replaces 
libphobos2-dev_2.063.2_amd64.deb by an upgrade.

To have multiple dmd versions on your system, you can use the Jacob Carlborg 
project https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/dvm

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.20

[Jordi Sayol]

El 29/11/13 21:54, ilya-stromberg ha escrit:
 On Friday, 29 November 2013 at 20:17:54 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 El 29/11/13 20:37, ilya-stromberg ha escrit:
 On Friday, 29 November 2013 at 19:15:13 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 New dub v0.9.20 deb packages available at:

 d-apt http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Thank you.
 BTW, it would be great to have packages for previous DMD versions. You 
 already support it for `libphobos2-nn` and almost for all other packages.


 libphobos2-nn and other packages ending with -nn contains the shared 
 library necessary to run programs linked against them, so for this reason 
 these packages have version on its name, allowing to install multiple 
 versions of the same library.
 
 OK, I see. Can we have different DMD packages with different DMD names? For 
 example, can we have `dmd-63` and `dmd-64` at the same time? So, the `dmd` is 
 simple alias to the latest DMD version. Sorry if I miss something, but it 
 looks like possible solution.

Is not the target of this repository.

 
 To have multiple dmd versions on your system, you can use the Jacob Carlborg 
 project https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/dvm
 
 Yes, I know. But packages save some time.
 

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.20

[Jordi Sayol]

El 30/11/13 02:08, Piotr Szturmaj ha escrit:
 Sönke Ludwig wrote:
 A fresh DUB release is out. Apart from the usual bug fixes, there are a
 few considerable changes:
 
 Thanks! Have you considered adding a version number to dub help and/or a 
 --version option?

$ dub help

prints version on last line:


DUB version v0.9.20

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.064.2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 11/11/13 19:00, Jacob Carlborg ha escrit:
 
 The version says DMD64 D Compiler v2.064 instead of DMD64 D Compiler 
 v2.064.2.
 

Same on Linux.

On v2.064.2:
...
DMD64 D Compiler v2.064
...

On v2.063.2:
...
DMD64 D Compiler v2.063.2
...

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.064.2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 06/11/13 11:47, Jordi Sayol ha escrit:
 El 06/11/13 10:55, Jordi Sayol ha escrit:
 El 05/11/13 23:46, Walter Bright ha escrit:
 On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
 Figured it out.  You used linux/win/installer.nsi.  I have no idea why that
 exists and what it is for.

 It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it 
 was the same.


 It is not the same. The linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi is a fork of 
 windows/dinstaller.nsi. Mainly differs as it includes everything on itself, 
 removing the need to download dmd/dmc/libcurl every time dmd is installed. 
 There are some other minor changes.

 
 Errata: s:linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi:linux/win/installer.nsi:
 
 BTW. Changes on this fork:
 
 - Built in all the needed components. No downloads during installation.
 
 - Checks if another dmd version is already installed, and force to uninstall 
 it before proceed. If uninstaller fails, installation can be forced by the 
 command dmd-2.064.2.exe /f.
 
 - Changes on the Windows system registry fields and values.
 
 - Remove the dmd version 1.
 
 - Not allowed to go ahead if nothing is selected.
 
 - Changed default path to C:\dmd. If previous dmd installation is set to 
 another path, installer uses it instead the default.
 
 
 It is prepared to be built by the linux/dmd_win.sh, which is included on 
 linux/build_all.sh as well.
 

Add to these changes:

- Check if a dmd installer instance is already running (only one at a time 
allowed).

- When uninstalling, keeps root dmd folder if some file/folder added by the 
user remains there, but not if in dm nor dmd2 folders.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.064.2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 05/11/13 23:46, Walter Bright ha escrit:
 On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
 Figured it out.  You used linux/win/installer.nsi.  I have no idea why that
 exists and what it is for.
 
 It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it 
 was the same.
 

It is not the same. The linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi is a fork of 
windows/dinstaller.nsi. Mainly differs as it includes everything on itself, 
removing the need to download dmd/dmc/libcurl every time dmd is installed. 
There are some other minor changes.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.064.2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 06/11/13 10:55, Jordi Sayol ha escrit:
 El 05/11/13 23:46, Walter Bright ha escrit:
 On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
 Figured it out.  You used linux/win/installer.nsi.  I have no idea why that
 exists and what it is for.

 It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it 
 was the same.

 
 It is not the same. The linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi is a fork of 
 windows/dinstaller.nsi. Mainly differs as it includes everything on itself, 
 removing the need to download dmd/dmc/libcurl every time dmd is installed. 
 There are some other minor changes.
 

Errata: s:linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi:linux/win/installer.nsi:

BTW. Changes on this fork:

- Built in all the needed components. No downloads during installation.

- Checks if another dmd version is already installed, and force to uninstall it 
before proceed. If uninstaller fails, installation can be forced by the command 
dmd-2.064.2.exe /f.

- Changes on the Windows system registry fields and values.

- Remove the dmd version 1.

- Not allowed to go ahead if nothing is selected.

- Changed default path to C:\dmd. If previous dmd installation is set to 
another path, installer uses it instead the default.


It is prepared to be built by the linux/dmd_win.sh, which is included on 
linux/build_all.sh as well.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.064.2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 05/11/13 23:08, Walter Bright ha escrit:
 Ok, this is it:
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 

Linux libraries libphobos2.so.0.64.0 still include libcurl versioned symbols. 
These libraries can only be used on Linux systems based on Debian.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 2.064.2

[Jordi Sayol]

El 05/11/13 23:08, Walter Bright ha escrit:
 Ok, this is it:
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 

In dmd.2.064.2.zip, src/VERSION contains 2.064. Should be 2.064.2
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: Programming in D book is about 95% translated

[Jordi Sayol]

On 03/11/13 02:30, Kelet wrote:
 On Saturday, 2 November 2013 at 00:03:51 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 I have continued with the translation of the book. There are 36 of the 727 
 pages still to be translated. (However, I still need to write the UDA 
 chapter.)

 In addition to many corrections and additions throughout the book, there are 
 the following chapters translated:

 * Tuples
 * More Templates
 * More Functions
 * Mixins
 * More Ranges

 As a reminder, the book is available as PDF, downloadable from the header of 
 each chapter:

   http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/index.html

 No Kindle or Lulu versions yet.

 Ali
 
 Thanks for all your hard work, Ali.
 
 I believe having a set of up to date references, tutorials, and
 books are paramount to the further adoption and success of D as a
 programming language.
 

+1

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: Arch Linux D news digest

[Jordi Sayol]

On 25/08/13 21:11, Dicebot wrote:
 Greetings to fellow Arch Linux users - quite a lot of stuff has
 happened there recently in relation to D and this should sum it
 up.
 
 Some changes may have not been synchronised to all mirrors yet,
 so please wait a bit before reporting :)
 
 --
Changes
 --
 
 1) After long period of bothering him with package change
 proposals previous D maintainer, Sven-Hendrik Haase, decided to
 transfer responsibilities for their maintenance to me. After
 formal voting I have been added to Trusted User list with
 intention to take care of anything D-related in Arch Linux.

Congratulations! :-)

 
 2) `gdc` package has been added to the [community]. It uses 4.8.1
 branch to match gcc version in Arch repositories. I know this one
 is relatively old and hope to fix this one day with Iain's help ;)
 
 3) All D compilers now have common naming/path convention.
 Library:
  - libphobos.a
  - liblphobos.a
  - libgphobos.a

Is it not better:
- libphobos2.a
- liblphobos2.a
- libgphobos2.a

 
 Imports:
  - /usr/include/dlang/dmd
  - /usr/include/dlang/ldc
  - /usr/include/dlang/gdc/{gcc-version}

Current debian path is without dlang directory, but I think that this is not 
a problem.

 
 4) Four package groups has been defined: 'dlang', 'dlang-dmd',
 'dlang-ldc', 'dlang-gdc'. Those can used as install/remove
 targets for pacman to get full development stack.
 
 5) More preparations for shared library support. `libphobos`
 package currently contains only libphobos.so (with fixed SONAME)
 and is intended to be used as a dependency for user applications.

Is it not better:
- libphobos2.so

What's the Arch Linux way to name shared libraries? On debian, libphobos2.so 
(libphobos2-dev) is a symlink to real libphobos2.so.0.63.0 (libphobos2-63) 
shared library. libphobos2.so.0.63 (libphobos2-63) SONAME symlink is created 
with the ldconfig command during the deb package (un)installation.

 Static library and import sources are available via
 `libphobos-devel`. GDC and LDC currently have only -devel
 versions of phobos as they don't seem to provide share one (I
 will be happy to add one if I am wrong).
 
 6) `dtools` package now also provides DustMite!
 
 --
 Sources  bug reports
 --
 
 I am inevitably going to screw something at at some point and you
 will inevitably want to make a tweaked versions of official
 packages in AUR.
 
 Official Arch Linux stuff:
  [community] bug tracker:
 https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=5do=indexswitch=1
  packaging script sources:
 https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/{package-name}
 
 However, I do prefer git/Github for development and exact mirror
 can be found here (together with my AUR packages):
  https://github.com/Dicebot/Arch-PKGBUILDs
 
 Both accepting pull requests and checking for bug reports there.
 
 --
 Adding new D packages
 --
 
 https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU_and_.5Bcommunity.5D.2C_Guidelines_for_Package_Maintenance
 :
 
 Only popular packages may enter the repo, as defined by 1%
 usage from pkgstats or 10 votes on the AUR.
 
 Yes, that is correct. I have a legitimate reasons to move any D
 package from  AUR to [community] once it reaches 10 votes. Please
 don't forget to vote! At least tools like `dub` and `dstep`, in
 my opinion, are prime candidates for inclusion ;)
 
 If there are any D packages that match that criteria and I have
 missed it - please, ping me via pub...@dicebot.lv or on IRC
 (Dicebot @ irc.freenode.net)
 

Great work! awesome!

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: stop to maitain rpm

[Jordi Sayol]

On 11/08/13 16:51, bioinfornatics wrote:
 Too many project is a nightmare to package.
 Developper do not see that dub is a tool to help user to get some D lib as is 
 done in ruby python or perl. But dub is not for packaging!
 
 I am lazy to do this job and D packaging
 

It's very sad hear that you leaves this great work. I'd like to hear you have 
changed your decision. Let me ask you if your motives are only the exposed up 
or there are another ones?

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: d-apt server has moved

[Jordi Sayol]

On 03/07/13 11:14, Russel Winder wrote:
 Jordi,
 
 On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 08:29 +0200, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 Due to changes on *Google Code Download Service* http://ves.cat/g5_Q,
 d-apt project has been moved to *SourceForge* 
 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/.
 
 Working fine for me. Actually working better than the previous one as it
 uses proper Debian repository structuring :-)

Yes, i.e. now it allows to search files with apt-file form d-apt server.

 
 Thanks for doing supporting this repository and keeping things up to
 date.
 

Many thanks to you Russel! and to all the people that are using it.

BTW, Due to the new Linux shared libraries, there are some packages which do 
not properly works. i.e. this is the case of 32-bit Tango shared library. Hope 
this problem will be fixed soon.

Any comment/criticism will be appreciated.

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DMD 2.063.2 now up

[Jordi Sayol]

D programing language specifications v2.063.2 in several formats:

  dlangspec-2.063.2.chm  
http://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/dlangspec-2.063.2.chm

  dlangspec-2.063.2.epub  
http://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/dlangspec-2.063.2.epub

  dlangspec-2.063.2.mobi  
http://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/dlangspec-2.063.2.mobi

  dlangspec-2.063.2.pdf  
http://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/dlangspec-2.063.2.pdf



Due to the new phobos Linux shared library, I've split dmd into three new deb 
packages:

dmd-bin (compiler and others binaries)
libphobos2-63   (runtime shared library)
libphobos2-dev  (symlink, module files and static library)

libphobos2-63 deb package can be installed alone without the compiler, 
allowing to run programs linked against it.
Version on its name allows to install multiple phobos shared libraries at same 
time.

https://code.google.com/p/d-apt/

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: vibe.d 0.7.14 and DUB 0.9.12 released

[Jordi Sayol]

New Debian packages available at:

https://code.google.com/p/d-apt/

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.11 released

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 17/03/13 23:29, En/na 1100110 ha escrit:
 On 03/17/2013 04:05 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 Al 17/03/13 21:41, En/na Russel Winder ha escrit:
 On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 20:00 +0100, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 Al 17/03/13 19:22, En/na Russel Winder ha escrit:
 […]
 I am guessing that the number of the package is still 0.9.11-0 as I am
 not getting an update from the repository.


 That's correct. There will be deb updates for every dub beta release.

 The problem is that all updates to the repository need to have a
 monotonically increasing version number or clients will not refresh. The
 packager number needs to be updated to 0.9.11-1 so I can install it.


 I don't understand you.
 What you get if you writes:

 $ sudo apt-get install dub

 
 The following packages have unmet dependencies:
  dub : Depends: libc6 (= 2.14) but 2.13-38 is to be installed
 E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
 
 
 So I'm about to piss some people off when I say that should never have been 
 allowed into the repository.  It's the only D package in there that makes 
 such assumptions.
 
 Get it together and recompile the package please.
 

Ok, what's the oldest Linux release that these packages has to support?

Anyway, I've built and uploaded new dub Debian packages.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.11 released

[Jordi Sayol]

I've created new dub Debian packages and upload them at:

https://code.google.com/p/d-apt/

Test and comments are welcome.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.11 released

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 17/03/13 08:54, En/na Russel Winder ha escrit:
 On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 07:52 +, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Sun, 2013-03-10 at 13:16 +0100, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 Al 10/03/13 12:57, En/na Russel Winder ha escrit:
 Any chance of working with Jordi to get Debian packages into d-apt?


 I'll create DUB deb packages soon.


 Sorted. Thanks.
 
 Ah, except that it is compiled against libc6  2.14 and I am using
 Debian Unstable which is stuck on 2.13.
 

Can you test the new dub Debian packages please?

https://code.google.com/p/d-apt/

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.11 released

[Jordi Sayol]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Al 17/03/13 19:22, En/na Russel Winder ha escrit:
 On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 11:16 +0100, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 […]
 Can you test the new dub Debian packages please?

 https://code.google.com/p/d-apt/
 
 I am guessing that the number of the package is still 0.9.11-0 as I am
 not getting an update from the repository.
 

That's correct. There will be deb updates for every dub beta release.

- -- 
Jordi Sayol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRRhLDAAoJELJPaKLsI7W2S38P/RrAItIPAW852SuqAs3wmuRD
/tMHOec8rIOqcO5/is7dArmlnGGeTFZ0nBnAvEAcz07YJzmVkoN3bgVYeqiKw4xv
SmiR3oOKfAlSIbwRQeA4xHG9vOtBw5oHajEUIuHJIHTQ9Gd9E+Z2lQmfEtoOhtCT
n+0UIML13zkcGC/TO9HGvh+frg5GUVfBHdbT9R09q0JwfZcfdCs4XZeQahO8RQsj
ib44uqOwor3TZHfn3QskmziiY/xuCI0Wio+i5PFZ2OZL0U8sJk6ACjmCzE+nHhny
ySSqsg3/C8EsBEeCq9Y+cjfP43h+B13N5EDC3DJ5lslPxF99gXFO8rDmb7LL4EWR
K3BOMmAc9g5jBCGo+TYtXWTQWsr2K/MKuPKje6r12VV5Ccwe13Jt8rnVI6sf6pL+
DBylxXyUpTW5g6yuUQq/2z0yuM7QKqYCoKHaCiFn6M7aILIRbbQ4ltkyEFov6rVF
lG6S/GtBJJvH7+FHtz2VbNjOYTnXR3XxQ49aKP1Ht8l2LIv9QGlsfe33lRgSEWUC
rq1Z6gDr/cj6D8gyMt9p7G8p+CsGjfBqq254WiwtMlmcs+epakqOQ8MQHohhtuCW
1o9FXMN6yy9xUKGUk/nnOQaFMtwiXartugvL8rQx7rcXyuDE8wpFNwldJ+wJgbZS
0+m9MSJPrL2UEZaBbHw8
=SQcQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: DUB 0.9.11 released

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 17/03/13 19:22, En/na Russel Winder ha escrit:
 On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 11:16 +0100, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 […]
 Can you test the new dub Debian packages please?

 https://code.google.com/p/d-apt/
 
 I am guessing that the number of the package is still 0.9.11-0 as I am
 not getting an update from the repository.
 

That's correct. There will be deb updates for every dub beta release.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.11 released

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 17/03/13 21:41, En/na Russel Winder ha escrit:
 On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 20:00 +0100, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 Al 17/03/13 19:22, En/na Russel Winder ha escrit:
 […]
 I am guessing that the number of the package is still 0.9.11-0 as I am
 not getting an update from the repository.


 That's correct. There will be deb updates for every dub beta release.
 
 The problem is that all updates to the repository need to have a
 monotonically increasing version number or clients will not refresh. The
 packager number needs to be updated to 0.9.11-1 so I can install it.
 

I don't understand you.
What you get if you writes:

$ sudo apt-get install dub

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DUB 0.9.11 released

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 10/03/13 12:57, En/na Russel Winder ha escrit:
 Any chance of working with Jordi to get Debian packages into d-apt?
 

I'll create DUB deb packages soon.

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: D 2.062 release

[Jordi Sayol]

dlangspec v2.062 in several formats:

  dlangspec.chm  http://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/dlangspec.chm

  dlangspec.epub  http://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/dlangspec.epub

  dlangspec.mobi  http://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/dlangspec.mobi

  dlangspec.pdf  http://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/dlangspec.pdf

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: vibe.d 0.7.12 released

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 11/02/13 12:53, En/na Sönke Ludwig ha escrit:
 Changes:
 
  - Refactored the MongoDB client to better match the actual database
structure + range interface for query results (by Dicebot)
 
  - A number of important fixes in the HttpClient and ConnectionPool
 
  - Correct memory alignment is now enforced in the custom memory allocators
(Caused exceptions on 32-bit Linux)
 
  - Added task management methods (interrupt(), join() and running)
 
  - Lots of smaller fixes and enhancements
 
 Full change log: http://vibed.org/blog/posts/vibe-release-0.7.12
 Download: http://vibed.org/download?file=vibed-0.7.12.zip
 GitHub: https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d
 

Congratulations for this new release Sönke! Great work!

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 03/01/13 17:01, En/na Iain Buclaw ha escrit:
 On 3 January 2013 15:40, Jordi Sayol g.sa...@yahoo.es 
 mailto:g.sa...@yahoo.es wrote:
 
 Until today, I've not found yet a perfect Linux release.
 
 
 What perfect Linux release did you find today? :o)
 

Sorry, my English is very bad. I wanted to say that I didn't find yet. 

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 03/01/13 09:26, En/na Russel Winder ha escrit:
 On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 20:31 +0100, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 […]
 Walter, to avoid this problem you can install a rolling release like Linux 
 Mint Debian Edition, based on Debian testing.
 You just need to keep it upgraded with mintUpdate manager (shield on 
 panel). Read the Update pack info before.
 
 Sadly Debian Testing, outside of a freeze period prior to a Stable
 release, has this habit of allowing Britney to delete important
 packages. Despite the statements put out by Debian, Debian Testing is
 not a viable rolling release. Debian Unstable is the only viable rolling
 release. Even then during a freeze it is irritating.
 
 Has Linux Mint Debian Edition got a fix for this problem with Debian
 Testing?
 

1. LMDE is not Debian Testing, it's based on Debian Testing (not shared 
repositories).

2. They update differently. Debian Testing constantly receive updates. Instead, 
LMDE releases “Update Packs” every few months (tested snapshots of Debian 
Testing). So we can call it semi-rolling release.

3. LMDE has not deadline, unlike Debian Stable, Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE, etc.

Anyway, nobody is forced to use it. Until today, I've not found yet a perfect 
Linux release.

Best regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 02/01/13 19:07, En/na Walter Bright ha escrit:

 Really?   http://packages.ubuntu.com/quantal/ruby
 
 Yeah, really. sudo apt-get ruby fails on Ubuntu 10.10.

$ sudo apt-get install ruby

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 02/01/13 19:47, En/na Walter Bright ha escrit:
 On 1/2/2013 10:37 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 Al 02/01/13 19:07, En/na Walter Bright ha escrit:

 Really?   http://packages.ubuntu.com/quantal/ruby

 Yeah, really. sudo apt-get ruby fails on Ubuntu 10.10.

 $ sudo apt-get install ruby
 
 That's what I did try, and yes, it fails too.
 

I don't know why.

In a Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS, the command:
$ sudo apt-get install ruby
installs these three packages:
ruby
ruby1.8
libruby1.8

Otherwise is that ruby version is lower that required.

Best regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 02/01/13 20:28, En/na Walter Bright ha escrit:
 On 1/2/2013 11:09 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 I don't know why.
 
 
 mercury ~ sudo apt-get install ruby
 [sudo] password for walter:
 Reading package lists... Done
 Building dependency tree
 Reading state information... Done
 The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer 
 required:
   linux-headers-2.6.35-22-generic linux-headers-2.6.35-22
 Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
 The following extra packages will be installed:
   libreadline5 libruby1.8 ruby1.8
 Suggested packages:
   ri ruby-dev ruby1.8-examples ri1.8
 The following NEW packages will be installed:
   libreadline5 libruby1.8 ruby ruby1.8
 0 upgraded, 4 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
 Need to get 1,841kB/2,010kB of archives.
 After this operation, 8,266kB of additional disk space will be used.
 Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Y
 WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated!
   libreadline5 libruby1.8 ruby1.8 ruby
 Install these packages without verification [y/N]? Y
 Err http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-updates/main libruby1.8 
 amd64 1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1
   404  Not Found [IP: 91.189.91.15 80]
 Err http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-security/main libruby1.8 
 amd64 1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1
   404  Not Found
 Err http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick-security/main ruby1.8 amd64 
 1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1
   404  Not Found
 Failed to fetch 
 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/r/ruby1.8/libruby1.8_1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1_amd64.deb
   404  Not Found
 Failed to fetch 
 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/r/ruby1.8/ruby1.8_1.8.7.299-2ubuntu0.1_amd64.deb
   404  Not Found
 E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with 
 --fix-missing?
 mercury ~
 

You're right. Ubuntu 10.10 is not longer supported, so the repositories are not 
available.

Sorry, I didn't understand you. A rolling release will avoid this problem.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 02/01/13 19:51, En/na Walter Bright ha escrit:
 On 1/2/2013 10:17 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 10:07 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
 […]
 Yeah, really. sudo apt-get ruby fails on Ubuntu 10.10.

 Any and all apt-related commands are likely to fail for that version of
 Ubuntu, it is no longer supported.  Definitely need to stick with LTS
 version of Ubuntu or keep up to date, should be on 12.10 by now.
 
 I've been avoiding upgrading Ubuntu, because the last time I did that the 
 installer trashed everything. Lost a day on that one.
 
 P.S. The Mac is the only machine I've ever been able to upgrade the operating 
 system on that worked without trashing everything and forcing a reinstall 
 from scratch.
 
 

Walter, to avoid this problem you can install a rolling release like Linux 
Mint Debian Edition, based on Debian testing.
You just need to keep it upgraded with mintUpdate manager (shield on panel). 
Read the Update pack info before.

This month is scheduled to be a new LMDE DVD ISO release.

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: GtkD 2.0 released, Gtk+ 3 with D.

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 12/10/12 15:38, En/na Andrej Mitrovic ha escrit:
 
 Anyway it's not too shabby. It's great that we have a multiplatform
 library that's up to date. Thanks GtkD devs!
 

You can say it in singular. There is only one active dev in GtkD project. Mike 
Wey. Many many thanks to him.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: GtkD 2.0 released, Gtk+ 3 with D.

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 04/10/12 02:32, En/na Tommi ha escrit:
 On Wednesday, 26 September 2012 at 18:48:41 UTC, Mike James wrote:
 I tried the install detailed on the github page and got the following error:


 C:\D\dmd2\gtkD2\srcdgen
 build\gtkD.d(612): Error: module SourceBuffer is in file 
 'gsv\SourceBuffer.d' wh
 ich cannot be read
 import path[0] = C:\D\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\phobos
 import path[1] = C:\D\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import
 
 
 Using those same instructions...
 https://github.com/gtkd-developers/GtkD/wiki/Installing-on-Windows
 ...I only manage to get this error (after ~10 seconds):
 
 D:\Documents\GitHub\GtkD\srcdgen.exe
 Fatal Error: Out of memory
 
 Even though Task Manager shows only negligible increase in memory.
 

I got the same error in wine:
Fatal Error: Out of memory

I override it by compiling first to object files and then building the library:
dgen.d:

import std.path;
import std.file;
import std.process;

void main()
{
std.file.write(build.rf, listFiles(.d));
system(dmd -c -op @build.rf);

std.file.write(build.rf, listFiles(.obj));
system(dmd -lib -ofGtkD @build.rf);

std.file.remove(build.rf);
}

string listFiles(string file_ext)
{
string files;
auto entries = dirEntries(src, SpanMode.breadth);

foreach(DirEntry entry; entries) {
if(entry.isDir == false  entry.name.extension == file_ext) {
files ~= entry.name ~  ;
}
}

return files;
}


Compiling and executing from GtkD root directory.

Now GtkD.lib is generated, and properly compiles gtkd programs:
$ wine dmd.exe -L C:/D/dmd2/windows/lib/GtkD.lib HelloWorld.d

BTW. What's the right way to add -L C:/D/dmd2/windows/lib/GtkD.lib to 
sc.ini file?

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DIL v2.000 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 24/09/12 10:03, En/na Aziz K. ha escrit:
 So I got informed that the 64bit Linux version doesn't work at all. Sorry 
 about that. Either I'm doing something wrong or cross-compilation isn't 
 possible on my 32bit machine. *sigh*
 

Cross-compiling is not the problem. I compiled 64-bit version of a gtkd 
programs with dmd 2.060 (32-bit) into 32-bit Ubuntu, and it works like a charm 
on a Ubuntu 64-bit.
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: Programming in D book is about 62% translated

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 16/09/12 08:40, En/na Ali Çehreli ha escrit:
 I have continued with the translation of the book. At this point there are 
 439 pages in English of total 703 pages in Turkish.
 
 In addition to many corrections and additions throughout the book, there are 
 two more chapters translated:
 
 * Constructor and Other Special Functions
 * Operator Overloading
 
 As a reminder, the book is available as PDF, downloadable from the header of 
 each chapter:
 
   http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/index.html
 
 No Kindle or Lulu versions yet.
 
 Ali
 

Amazing! great work! 

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: First working Win64 program!

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 12/08/12 06:18, En/na Walter Bright ha escrit:
 On 8/11/2012 8:29 PM, 拖狗散步 wrote:
 Walter Bright They say you're an old man, I think your avatar is really so 
 young?
 
 Every night, I drink the blood of unborn children.
 

Now I understand many many things... :-)
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 1.075 and 2.060 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 05/08/12 10:14, En/na Walter Bright ha escrit:
 On 8/4/2012 7:23 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 Executable permission are missing for ddemangle, dman and shell.
 
 
 Which platform?
 

dmd1:
freebsd/bin32/shell

the rest appear to be correct.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 1.075 and 2.060 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 02/08/12 22:46, En/na Marco Leise ha escrit:
 
 By the way, it would be great if the bash completion script was also 
 available in the .zip distribution.
 

By now, the bash completion script uses binary zip file (not its structure) to 
build deb packages, so there is not much sense to include these scripts on the 
release zip file. Anyway, zip, deb and rpm packages are always released at same 
time.

I know that this is not the standard way to build deb packages, but binaries 
inside these zip files have been tested.

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 1.075 and 2.060 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 03/08/12 14:29, En/na Jacob Carlborg ha escrit:
 On 2012-08-02 22:46, Marco Leise wrote:
 
 A new Gentoo ebuild is submitted for review as well. Thanks for the 
 posix.mak changes and zlib update, I could delete quite a bit of my patch. 
 By the way, it would be great if the bash completion script was also 
 available in the .zip distribution.
 
 Is there a bash completion script, where?
 

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/blob/master/linux/dmd-completion

It's based on d-completion.sh at https://github.com/Lutger/d_utils

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: dmd 1.075 and 2.060 release

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 03/08/12 21:22, En/na Jacob Carlborg ha escrit:
 On 2012-08-03 14:47, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/blob/master/linux/dmd-completion

 It's based on d-completion.sh at https://github.com/Lutger/d_utils
 
 How about that. It should absolutely be bundled with the .zip.
 

dmd deb and rpm packages include it, but this script do not works out of the 
box. bash-completion package must be installed, and the script should be placed 
in a specific folder.
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: Revamp of CandyDOC

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 12/04/12 22:53, En/na Jonas Drewsen ha escrit:
 
 The outline and package panes should be combined IMHO. Perhaps something like 
 (ascii art):
 
 ---
 +
   atk
 Component
 ---
 MyClass
   getStruct
   contains
   ...
   ...
 FooClass
   setBar
   ...
 ---
 
 
 Where clicking on atk would show all atk packages. Clicking on + show all 
 packages etc.
 
 The lower section is simply showing the currenly selected package.

I'm agree with you, but this is a deep rebuilding. First step is to separate 
left pane into a single file, and this will also drastically reduce the total 
size. Actually, every html package file contains all the left pane 
(unnecessarily repeated).

BTW, It looks very nice now. Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: Revamp of CandyDOC

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 13/04/12 00:14, En/na Jay Norwood ha escrit:
 On Wednesday, 11 April 2012 at 22:17:16 UTC, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 example http://eldar.me/candydoc/algorithm.html . Among new
 
 
 The outline panel links work fine on Google Chrome, but not on IE8.
 

Also properly works on Firefox 11 (Linux), and is a mess on IE6 on W2K.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: Revamp of CandyDOC

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 12/04/12 00:17, En/na Eldar Insafutdinov ha escrit:
 CandyDOC has not been updated for about 6 years, and despite its usefulness 
 its current state was rather sad. Overall look was awful; colours, font 
 sizes, everything just was not right. D allows some very beautiful code, but 
 the look and feel of documentation is not on par. Anyway, I gave it a bit of 
 a refresh (which was in fact a major refactoring) and here is an example 
 http://eldar.me/candydoc/algorithm.html . Among new features is also instant 
 filtering. You can grab the sources at https://github.com/eldar/candydoc . 
 There is still a scope for improvements: adding links to the subsections and 
 ideally producing links to the source code. For that ddoc needs to output 
 line numbers of declarations which I am not sure it does, but that can be 
 added.
 
 Cheers
 
 Eldar
 

Another important thing is to allow multiple directories. Lars T. Kyllingstad 
has a corrected version of candydoc at https://github.com/kyllingstad/scid that 
allow this.
In Your project, simply replacing path[i] by path.join(_) on 
explorer.js(236), and naming html files like path_to_file.html

Best regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: Programming in D book, Parallelism chapter

[Jordi Sayol]

Congratulations!

Is a very educational book.

Cheers!
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DMD 2.x compiler in Arch Linux repo

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 15/01/12 23:57, En/na Jordi Sayol ha escrit:
 Al 15/01/12 23:16, En/na Михаил Страшун ha escrit:
 http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=dmd

 Since today 2.x branch of dmd is in Arch Linux [community] repo, replacing 
 1.x branch.

 
 Very good news!
 
 It works like a charm. Congratulations!
 
 Just one question. Why you place the phobos modules at /usr/include/d instead 
 of an specific phobos folder?
 

I see that you included libdruntime.a and libphobos2.a libraries, but your 
libphobos2.a contains all libdruntime.a objects, so they're duplicated.

You can install libphobos2.a alone, or just build it without libdruntime.a 
in it.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: DMD 2.x compiler in Arch Linux repo

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 15/01/12 23:16, En/na Михаил Страшун ha escrit:
 http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=dmd
 
 Since today 2.x branch of dmd is in Arch Linux [community] repo, replacing 
 1.x branch.
 

Very good news!

It works like a charm. Congratulations!

Just one question. Why you place the phobos modules at /usr/include/d instead 
of an specific phobos folder?

Best regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: The book Programming in D is in beta

[Jordi Sayol]

Good news! ;-)

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: D2 port of Tango

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 27/12/11 14:41, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit:
 
 Yes, but phobos is called phobos instead of phobos2. I'll think about
 it ;-).
 
h, phobos for dmd2 is not a fork of phobos for dmd1 ;-)

Another thing, I got many problems generating documentation.

$ make doc -f posix.mak 
...
tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead
tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead
...

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: D2 port of Tango

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 27/12/11 14:04, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit:
 
 If you start use phobos and tango more intensively, you'll ran into
 different problems.
 
 Consider this: Cannot implicit convert struct timeval to struct timeval.
 Just because there are two definitions, one in druntime and another in
 tango.
 
 Sooner or later you'll get crazy. I'm going to remove everything that's
 already present in druntime.
 

 import std.stdio;
 import tango.io.Stdout;

 void main()
 {
   writeln(hello phobos!);
   Stdout(hello tango!).newline;
 }

 Properly compiles and run.
 So, is it not a good idea to join forces to advance more strongly, since 
 pursued the same goal?

 Best regards,
 
 
 Okay, I've also changed a little bit of tango's original api. People
 might dislike this. But it's a little bit more KISS (Keep it small and
 simple).
 
 tango.utils.container.more.Stack.
 
 Why not just use
 
 tango.container.Stack ?
 
 

Ok, so if this tango will be quite different than the original one, is not a 
good idea to change its name? Just to make it more clear and less 
confusing. Tango2 is enough, I think.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

Re: D2 port of Tango

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 25/12/11 18:17, En/na Damian Ziemba ha escrit:
 
 They got 2 different goals. SiegeLord wants to keep as much of original Tango 
 as possible and make it D2-wish while mt'chrono changes Tango itself, because 
 he thinks something is wrong-designed (or he doesn't get idea properly). 
 tango.net.* for example. That's all, that's why there are 2 branches.

Thanks for your comment.
Then, if mt'chrono change Tango itself, isn't a good ide to change a bit its 
name? as Tango2 or whatever, just to be more distinguishable from SiegeLord's 
branch.

 
 And SiegeLord's branch *IS* built on top of druntime. Extra features that 
 Tango runtime had, are inside version blocks, so you may want use them also 
 :) But out of box it works with druntime without any additional steps.
 

I'm sure you're right but, I just say that SiegeLord's branch do not need 
druntime.a library present on a Linux system to be compiled, and mt'chrono's 
branch yes.

Best regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: D2 port of Tango

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 24/12/11 01:39, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit:
 I'm using dmd 2.058 and `make -f posix.mak` to compile it. Can you
 please tell me your errors?
 
 - mta`chrono
 

$ make -f posix.mak
make MODEL=32 BUILD=release --no-print-directory -f posix.mak
dmd -c -m32 -I../druntime/import -w -d -m32 -O -release -nofloat 
-ofgenerated/release/32/tango/util/log/AppendSocket.o 
tango/util/log/AppendSocket.d
tango/net/Address.d(18): Error: module un is in file 'core/sys/posix/sys/un.d' 
which cannot be read
import path[0] = ../druntime/import
import path[1] = /usr/include/d/dmd/phobos
import path[2] = /usr/include/d/dmd/druntime/import
make[1]: *** [generated/release/32/tango/util/log/AppendSocket.o] Error 1
make: *** [release] Error 2

same result with:
$ make -f posix.mak MODEL=64
-- 
Jordi Sayol



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: D2 port of Tango

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 24/12/11 14:20, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit:
 Hey Jordi,
 
 thank you for posting your results!!! :-)
 
 It tries to read core.sys.posix.sys.un which is part of druntime.

Yes, but it is not present on dmd.2.057.zip

 
 Unlike SiegeLord's branch I've removed tango's runtime and build on top
 of druntime. This step is inevitable in order to make tango and phobos
 work side by side.

hmmm, SiegeLord's branch works together with phobos too.

 
 The file that cannot be read on your system is definitivly there.
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/blob/master/src/core/sys/posix/sys/un.d
 
 You just need to checkout druntime, phobos and tango and put them in
 some kind of following file structure.
 
 /usr/include/d/dmd/druntime
 /usr/include/d/dmd/tango
 /usr/include/d/dmd/phobos
 
 Then compile druntime, phobos and tango.
 

After checkout, it properly compiles your branch of tango! many thanks!

Here is a link to a deb file containing your tango branch.

https://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/libtango-dev_1.99%7E2011.12.23-0_all.deb

It includes both 32 and 64-bit libraries, the modules, and the pkg-config 
configuration file for an easy compiling:
$ dmd `pkg-config --cflags --libs tango` myapp.d

As it was compiled with dmd 2.058 and there is not deb package for this version 
yet, this tango deb package has no  any dmd dependency (enough just for 
testing).

Now I've many problems generating documentation.
$ make doc -f posix.mak 
dmd -o- -version=TangoDoc -Dfdoc/html/tango/core/Array.html tango/core/Array.d
dmd -o- -version=TangoDoc -Dfdoc/html/tango/core/BitArray.html 
tango/core/BitArray.d
dmd -o- -version=TangoDoc -Dfdoc/html/tango/core/ByteSwap.html 
tango/core/ByteSwap.d
dmd -o- -version=TangoDoc -Dfdoc/html/tango/core/Exception.html 
tango/core/Exception.d
dmd -o- -version=TangoDoc -Dfdoc/html/tango/core/RuntimeTraits.html 
tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d
tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead
tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead
make: *** [doc/html/tango/core/RuntimeTraits.html] Error 1

Best regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: D2 port of Tango

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 24/12/11 14:20, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit:
 
 Unlike SiegeLord's branch I've removed tango's runtime and build on top
 of druntime. This step is inevitable in order to make tango and phobos
 work side by side.

SiegeLord's branch do not need druntime lib to be present on the system when 
compiling tango-d2, and the resulting libraries can be used together with 
phobos.

import std.stdio;
import tango.io.Stdout;

void main()
{
  writeln(hello phobos!);
  Stdout(hello tango!).newline;
}

Properly compiles and run.
So, is it not a good idea to join forces to advance more strongly, since 
pursued the same goal?

Best regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: D2 port of Tango

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 18/10/11 06:52, En/na SiegeLord ha escrit:
 I just wanted to get the word out about a little project me and a few other 
 people been working on for the few past months, in case anyone feels like 
 helping out (or just as an FYI). This project is the D2 port of the Tango 
 framework library. You can read about it here:
 
 https://github.com/SiegeLord/Tango-D2
 
 We are currently a little more than half way done in terms of modules fiddled 
 with. Currently there are 181 modules ported out of approximately 343 (give 
 or take 20). Currently only the dmd compiler and Linux platform are 
 supported... but obviously we want to get all the other platforms/compilers 
 as time goes on. I'm guessing at the current rate of porting we'll be done in 
 about half a year.
 
 Now, the project is actually two projects in one.
 
 The first project is a D2 port proper that tries to keep API semantics the 
 same as the D1 original. I preside over this aspect, and you can see the 
 rough porting guidelines in the repository. This is the 'd2port' branch in my 
 repository.
 
 The second project is a more ambitious effort to rewrite some aspects of 
 Tango without preserving semantics or anything. mtachrono presides over this 
 aspect, so you can talk to him about the motivations behind it. This is the 
 'master' branch in my repository.
 
 That's all. Cheers.
 
 -SiegeLord
 

Hello,

I've created two tango-d2 deb packages for debian like systems.

https://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/libtango-dev_1.99%7E2011.12.17-0_all.deb
https://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/libtango-doc_1.99%7E2011.12.17-0_all.deb

The first one includes the library (both, 32 and 64 bit, so it is not arch 
dependent), the source modules, and the pkg-config configuration file for an 
easy compilation:

$ dmd `pkg-config --cflags --libs tango` myapp.d

It depends on dmd 2.057 and newer.

The second one includes the html documentation generated with CandyDoc, and a 
shortcut to it at the system menu.
Also it includes the examples.

Best regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: D2 port of Tango

[Jordi Sayol]

Al 23/12/11 21:38, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit:
 Hey,
 
 that's cool. How did you create it? I'd like to create a .deb for my
 tango branch, too.
 
 https://github.com/mtachrono/tango
 
 - mta`chrono
 
 

I manually created them with debhelper.

I'm getting errors compiling your branch with dmd 2.057

Regards,
-- 
Jordi Sayol



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature