Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-06 07:26, Joakim wrote: You can compile 32-bit code on a 64-bit FreeBSD machine, as long as you do it inside a 32-bit FreeBSD jail. I've done this many times when compiling 32-bit FreeBSD packages and it works fine. If Jacob is interested, all he needs to do is setup a 32-bit FreeBSD jail, which is pretty straightforward. Yeah, I noticed that's an alternative. But since I've never done that that's way I said "might take a bit longer than I expected". Apparently it can generate 32bit binaries just fine, the problem is some header files are not properly ported to handle both 32 and 64bit. A C Hello World application works without a jail. As well as any D application (at least the one I tried). Seems Mac OS X is the only platform that handles this well, due to the use of universal binaries. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 21:58:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/5/2013 1:50 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-11-05 10:09, Walter Bright wrote: Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? Hmm, turns out it's currently not possible to build C++ code for 32bit on a 64bit FreeBSD machine. This might take a bit longer than I expected. I can still send you 64bit binaries if that is of interest. Yeah, you essentially need both a 32 bit FreeBSD install and a 64 bit one. I suppose what's needed is a "one click install" package for FreeBSD. You can compile 32-bit code on a 64-bit FreeBSD machine, as long as you do it inside a 32-bit FreeBSD jail. I've done this many times when compiling 32-bit FreeBSD packages and it works fine. If Jacob is interested, all he needs to do is setup a 32-bit FreeBSD jail, which is pretty straightforward. On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 09:52:26 UTC, Arjan wrote: DMD1 and DMD2 (and GDC) seems to be in the FreeBSD ports collection. Why can't those be used to buid the packages? The gdc FreeBSD port is marked as broken and deprecated. I don't think it's been updated in years, back when gdc was still written by the original author. I wrote the original makefiles for dmd1 and dmd2. They still work, but the current maintainer usually doesn't bother doing more than a cursory version number bump, so they'll often uninstall cleanly, as the list of files installed will be wrong (ie the pkg-plist is outdated). I also wrote a ldc1 makefile back then, but nobody maintained it, so it has been removed. It appears that dlang builds their own packages for some platforms, regardless of whether it's in the native package repository or not. Probably a good idea, for instant gratification of those who want to try it out.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/5/13 2:10 PM, Brad Roberts wrote: I really do intend to get the package builder producing bundles (not for every single build, that'd be.. scary). It's on my todo list. Maybe I'll dedicate my christmas vacation to that project. That would be awesome!! Andrei
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/5/2013 2:10 PM, Brad Roberts wrote: I really do intend to get the package builder producing bundles (not for every single build, that'd be.. scary). It's on my todo list. Maybe I'll dedicate my christmas vacation to that project. That would be awesome, and would be a big step forward in getting a reliable release process.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/5/13 2:00 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/5/2013 1:52 AM, Arjan wrote: Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? I have access to FreeBSD machine(s) and willing to lend a hand and spend some time on this. What is needed to do the FreeBSD package build? (Currently I just do a git clone/pull of the github dlang stuff and build it to get the master or any other branch I want) Were do I find the build and package instructions? That's part of handling it - figuring out all that stuff :-) I don't know what it is. Is running regressions tests required before releasing a build package? Yes, and the regression suite is part of the github repository. Alternatively, you could talk to Brad and get the actual binaries from the autotester. What is the packages release (and build) frequency? It's a bit erratic, but generally once every 3 months or so. DMD1 and DMD2 (and GDC) seems to be in the FreeBSD ports collection. Why can't those be used to buid the packages? Building it is less of an issue than getting a FreeBSD install. I really do intend to get the package builder producing bundles (not for every single build, that'd be.. scary). It's on my todo list. Maybe I'll dedicate my christmas vacation to that project.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/5/2013 1:52 AM, Arjan wrote: Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? I have access to FreeBSD machine(s) and willing to lend a hand and spend some time on this. What is needed to do the FreeBSD package build? (Currently I just do a git clone/pull of the github dlang stuff and build it to get the master or any other branch I want) Were do I find the build and package instructions? That's part of handling it - figuring out all that stuff :-) I don't know what it is. Is running regressions tests required before releasing a build package? Yes, and the regression suite is part of the github repository. Alternatively, you could talk to Brad and get the actual binaries from the autotester. What is the packages release (and build) frequency? It's a bit erratic, but generally once every 3 months or so. DMD1 and DMD2 (and GDC) seems to be in the FreeBSD ports collection. Why can't those be used to buid the packages? Building it is less of an issue than getting a FreeBSD install.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/5/2013 1:50 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-11-05 10:09, Walter Bright wrote: Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? Hmm, turns out it's currently not possible to build C++ code for 32bit on a 64bit FreeBSD machine. This might take a bit longer than I expected. I can still send you 64bit binaries if that is of interest. Yeah, you essentially need both a 32 bit FreeBSD install and a 64 bit one. I suppose what's needed is a "one click install" package for FreeBSD.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-05 10:09, Walter Bright wrote: Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? Hmm, turns out it's currently not possible to build C++ code for 32bit on a 64bit FreeBSD machine. This might take a bit longer than I expected. I can still send you 64bit binaries if that is of interest. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/5/2013 4:02 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: There's only one file named readme.txt. ;-) See here for the latest file: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/blob/master/src/readme.txt Thanks, I'll take care of it.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 5 November 2013 09:35, Walter Bright wrote: > On 11/4/2013 11:46 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> For the second time, the license on the readme.txt distributed with the >> sources >> is wrong? >> > > Which one in which directory and what should it be? > > There's only one file named readme.txt. ;-) See here for the latest file: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/blob/master/src/readme.txt -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-05 10:09, Walter Bright wrote: Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? Actually, I guess I could to a quick build tonight or tomorrow night and just send you the files. But as you have said, it would be better if the autotester could do that. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-05 10:09, Walter Bright wrote: They aren't, actually. The 64 bit stuff isn't, and the 32 bit phobos is old. Ok, that's quite confusing. Isn't it better to _not_ include the 32bit files instead of including old ones. The reason for that is I could never get NetBSD to run (either in a virtual box or on a spare machine). Ok, I see. Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? I'm quite busy, yes I know, we all are. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds? I have access to FreeBSD machine(s) and willing to lend a hand and spend some time on this. What is needed to do the FreeBSD package build? (Currently I just do a git clone/pull of the github dlang stuff and build it to get the master or any other branch I want) Were do I find the build and package instructions? Is running regressions tests required before releasing a build package? What is the packages release (and build) frequency? DMD1 and DMD2 (and GDC) seems to be in the FreeBSD ports collection. Why can't those be used to buid the packages?
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 11:46 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: For the second time, the license on the readme.txt distributed with the sources is wrong? Which one in which directory and what should it be?
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 11:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-11-04 21:01, Walter Bright wrote: The libraries were not built correctly (my old machine runs out of memory building them). FreeBSD users have needed to, for some time now, fork/build to get it. I don't understand, the binaries and Phobos are included in the zip They aren't, actually. The 64 bit stuff isn't, and the 32 bit phobos is old. (I haven't verified that they work). But dmd.conf is not. Can't you include dmd.conf just because your machine runs out of memory? Heck, I had spent considerable time just trying to figure out *which* virtual box to install. Each option came with a long list of caveats and things that didn't work. Some would work with one OS, some with another, the one I did download would kinda sorta work with NetBSD, but not really, etc. Then, of course, was having it all wiped out by upgrading Ubuntu. I'm not sure I understand what you're meaning. If I want to install Ubuntu, I just create a new virtual machine (using VirtualBox), download Ubuntu and makes a default installation. If I want Fedora, I do the same thing but I download and install Fedora instead. NetBSD? We don't even support NetBSD. The reason for that is I could never get NetBSD to run (either in a virtual box or on a spare machine). For FreeBSD, just do the same thing, download FreeBSD. Actually, for FreeBSD I installed PC-BSD instead. That will include a GUI by default, making it basically just as easy to use as Ubuntu. The only thing that I had some trouble with is cross-compiling. That is, building 32bit on a 64bit machine. It's not impossible to do. There's just a significant time sink involved in figuring out which one to get, getting it installed, getting it working, and keeping it working. It's actually easier to just buy another machine. I'm not going to argue. If you have trouble picking which ISO image to download we can help you. What's taking the most time for me is download the ISO and wait for the installation. But I can do other things while waiting. Why not volunteer to handle the FreeBSD package builds?
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-04 21:01, Walter Bright wrote: The libraries were not built correctly (my old machine runs out of memory building them). FreeBSD users have needed to, for some time now, fork/build to get it. I don't understand, the binaries and Phobos are included in the zip (I haven't verified that they work). But dmd.conf is not. Can't you include dmd.conf just because your machine runs out of memory? Heck, I had spent considerable time just trying to figure out *which* virtual box to install. Each option came with a long list of caveats and things that didn't work. Some would work with one OS, some with another, the one I did download would kinda sorta work with NetBSD, but not really, etc. Then, of course, was having it all wiped out by upgrading Ubuntu. I'm not sure I understand what you're meaning. If I want to install Ubuntu, I just create a new virtual machine (using VirtualBox), download Ubuntu and makes a default installation. If I want Fedora, I do the same thing but I download and install Fedora instead. NetBSD? We don't even support NetBSD. For FreeBSD, just do the same thing, download FreeBSD. Actually, for FreeBSD I installed PC-BSD instead. That will include a GUI by default, making it basically just as easy to use as Ubuntu. The only thing that I had some trouble with is cross-compiling. That is, building 32bit on a 64bit machine. It's not impossible to do. There's just a significant time sink involved in figuring out which one to get, getting it installed, getting it working, and keeping it working. It's actually easier to just buy another machine. I'm not going to argue. If you have trouble picking which ISO image to download we can help you. What's taking the most time for me is download the ISO and wait for the installation. But I can do other things while waiting. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 4 November 2013 08:03, Walter Bright wrote: > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz > > There is always something I broke or overlooked, so let's not make an > announcement yet until this is good to go. The web site needs updating, too. > For the second time, the license on the readme.txt distributed with the sources is wrong? -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/13 5:20 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/4/2013 2:47 PM, Rainer Schuetze wrote: Thanks. The Visual D installation is missing from this installer. Obviously, https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/23 has never been merged. As I've just released a new version, it would be nice if it could link to the new 0.3.37. There have been a blizzard of pulls done in the last couple weeks, and it isn't always clear to me which ones should go in 2.064. A note to me would be helpful with this. Also, is that pull enough, or are you suggesting it needs further modification? Why use lossy emails? Submit pull requests against the branch (with a pointer in the request to the associated master pull to help confirm that it's already been merged there first). That way it'll both get tested appropriately and not lost in the shuffle.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 2:47 PM, Rainer Schuetze wrote: Thanks. The Visual D installation is missing from this installer. Obviously, https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/23 has never been merged. As I've just released a new version, it would be nice if it could link to the new 0.3.37. There have been a blizzard of pulls done in the last couple weeks, and it isn't always clear to me which ones should go in 2.064. A note to me would be helpful with this. Also, is that pull enough, or are you suggesting it needs further modification?
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 04.11.2013 21:06, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/4/2013 12:03 AM, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm Windows: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.exe Thanks. The Visual D installation is missing from this installer. Obviously, https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/pull/23 has never been merged. As I've just released a new version, it would be nice if it could link to the new 0.3.37.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 12:03 AM, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm Windows: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.exe
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 11:32 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-11-04 20:19, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/4/2013 10:43 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote: Walter, can you also add the Windows installer to the RC? What exactly do you mean? You posted links to installers for all platforms except for Windows. Ah, I see. I'd overlooked that one. I thought Rainer meant he wanted me to cherry-pick some installer pull into 2.064.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 11:30 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-11-04 19:01, Walter Bright wrote: Absolutely not. We just don't have a download package for it (this is not a new development). There are binaries for FreeBSD 32bit, but the dmd.conf file is still missing. The libraries were not built correctly (my old machine runs out of memory building them). FreeBSD users have needed to, for some time now, fork/build to get it. I've had a virtual machine setup at one point, but those things require significant time to set up and to keep them from breaking (my virtual machine setups all broke when I upgraded Ubuntu). Personally I don't think it takes up so much time to setup, especially not for D development. Just keep the customizations and non-default packages to a minimum. Heck, I had spent considerable time just trying to figure out *which* virtual box to install. Each option came with a long list of caveats and things that didn't work. Some would work with one OS, some with another, the one I did download would kinda sorta work with NetBSD, but not really, etc. Then, of course, was having it all wiped out by upgrading Ubuntu. It's not impossible to do. There's just a significant time sink involved in figuring out which one to get, getting it installed, getting it working, and keeping it working. It's actually easier to just buy another machine.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-04 19:01, Walter Bright wrote: Absolutely not. We just don't have a download package for it (this is not a new development). There are binaries for FreeBSD 32bit, but the dmd.conf file is still missing. I've had a virtual machine setup at one point, but those things require significant time to set up and to keep them from breaking (my virtual machine setups all broke when I upgraded Ubuntu). Personally I don't think it takes up so much time to setup, especially not for D development. Just keep the customizations and non-default packages to a minimum. What I'd like is someone to become the "build master" who will get Brad's autotester to automatically and routinely build each platform install package. This will also have the effect of better dealing with the constant breakage of the scripts that build those packages. Yeah, that would be nice. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-04 20:19, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/4/2013 10:43 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote: Walter, can you also add the Windows installer to the RC? What exactly do you mean? You posted links to installers for all platforms except for Windows. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 10:43 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote: Walter, can you also add the Windows installer to the RC? What exactly do you mean?
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 10:20 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote: On 04/11/13 19:04, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/4/2013 4:19 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-11-04 11:52, Walter Bright wrote: They don't, but they've followed this pattern since they were originally created by Jordi, and I've left it as is. Too bad. I guess you don't want to change that? I don't like breaking my scripts and other peoples' scripts. It's annoying that they don't follow a proper pattern, but is not a big deal. If someone wants to step up and take the mantle of Build Master, he'd be in charge of things like that. Sorry. I forget to tell you. my fault. No worries. It's a minor detail.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 04.11.2013 19:16, Alvaro wrote: On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 08:03:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip [...] dmd -m64 xx.d says: Can't run '\bin\link.exe', check PATH Was that supposed to work? (as there are files in lib64 I thought it was ready) 32 bit is OK. If you are installing from the zip file, you need to have VCINSTALLDIR and WindowsSdkDir environment variables set. These are set if you open the console window for the Visual Studio version you want to use. These settings were hardcoded in sc.ini to the default installation path of VS2010 in previous dmd releases, but stripping the drive name. The windows installer will patch sc.ini to contain the paths of the most recent versions of VC and the Windows SDK. Walter, can you also add the Windows installer to the RC?
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 04/11/13 19:04, Walter Bright wrote: > On 11/4/2013 4:19 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: >> On 2013-11-04 11:52, Walter Bright wrote: >>> They don't, but they've followed this pattern since they were originally >>> created by Jordi, and I've left it as is. >> >> Too bad. I guess you don't want to change that? > > I don't like breaking my scripts and other peoples' scripts. It's annoying > that they don't follow a proper pattern, but is not a big deal. > > If someone wants to step up and take the mantle of Build Master, he'd be in > charge of things like that. > > Sorry. I forget to tell you. my fault. -- Jordi Sayol
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 08:03:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip [...] dmd -m64 xx.d says: Can't run '\bin\link.exe', check PATH Was that supposed to work? (as there are files in lib64 I thought it was ready) 32 bit is OK.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 4:17 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-11-04 11:58, Walter Bright wrote: They'll be dropped from the zip file. I don't have the equipment to build them at the moment. Will FreeBSD be dropped? Absolutely not. We just don't have a download package for it (this is not a new development). We never have had 64bit binaries but the 32bit? Can't you just setup a virtual machine? I've had a virtual machine setup at one point, but those things require significant time to set up and to keep them from breaking (my virtual machine setups all broke when I upgraded Ubuntu). What I'd like is someone to become the "build master" who will get Brad's autotester to automatically and routinely build each platform install package. This will also have the effect of better dealing with the constant breakage of the scripts that build those packages.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 4:19 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-11-04 11:52, Walter Bright wrote: They don't, but they've followed this pattern since they were originally created by Jordi, and I've left it as is. Too bad. I guess you don't want to change that? I don't like breaking my scripts and other peoples' scripts. It's annoying that they don't follow a proper pattern, but is not a big deal. If someone wants to step up and take the mantle of Build Master, he'd be in charge of things like that.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 13:09:10 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: eles, el 4 de November a las 09:37 me escribiste: On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 08:35:26 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: >On 2013-11-04 09:03, Walter Bright wrote: Is sad Yes , but it makes sense, this is a new "feature" that wasn't even merged or properly tested yet Just to note that this looks quite promising: http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/pull-history.ghtml?projectid=1&repoid=1&pullid=2700 (True, tests are not designed for this kind of change...) , so it shouldn't be included at a beta stage. Let's just hope next release won't take that long. Well, I hope. Also for various other compilers using the fronted, smaller gap between releases would make their maintainers' lives easier. A 2-month gap between releases?
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
eles, el 4 de November a las 09:37 me escribiste: > On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 08:35:26 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > >On 2013-11-04 09:03, Walter Bright wrote: > >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip > >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg > >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb > >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm > >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm > >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb > >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz > >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm > >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm > >>http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz > > Another 5 months waiting? > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11365 Is sad, but it makes sense, this is a new "feature" that wasn't even merged or properly tested yet, so it shouldn't be included at a beta stage. Let's just hope next release won't take that long. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- In 1995 a Japanese trawler sank, because a Russian cargo plane dropped a living cow from 30,000 feet
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
Walter Bright, el 4 de November a las 02:57 me escribiste: > On 11/4/2013 12:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > >You might want to name the release candidates properly and uniquely, just as > >you > >started to do with the betas. > > It'll follow the 2.063 pattern. You mean after this release it will be named 2.064.1, etc? Then don't call it a release candidate, is confusing. If is really an rc (which since you don't want to make an official announcement yet, I guess it is), please do what you did with the betas. All the same reasons to name the betas uniquely apply to release candidates. Just change beta1 with rc1 and make everybody happy. Is just one more little step! :) Please, please, please, never, ever overwrite released packages (betas and rc included) with a new one. You should consider them read-only after you create and publish them. Then be consistent with how you announce the releases (beta, rc, final) and the version numbers you are using. Thanks! -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- SEÑOR BIELSA: CON TODO RESPETO ¿USTED LO VE JUGAR A RIQUELME? -- Crónica TV
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 10:53:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: and dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz are missing. Seems to no longer be in 2.064. The installer builder was changed. I have asked Jordi to remove those some time ago to avoid confusion with official Arch packages as matching build script was very obsolete and did not conform packaging guidelines. If having an easily available beta/rc package is desired, it can be trivially added to AUR.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-04 11:58, Walter Bright wrote: They'll be dropped from the zip file. I don't have the equipment to build them at the moment. Will FreeBSD be dropped? We never have had 64bit binaries but the 32bit? Can't you just setup a virtual machine? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-04 11:52, Walter Bright wrote: There now. Thanks. They don't, but they've followed this pattern since they were originally created by Jordi, and I've left it as is. Too bad. I guess you don't want to change that? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 12:34 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: Still no dmd.conf or 64bit binaries for FreeBSD. They'll be dropped from the zip file. I don't have the equipment to build them at the moment.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 12:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: You might want to name the release candidates properly and uniquely, just as you started to do with the betas. It'll follow the 2.063 pattern.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 12:34 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: Based on the time you sent this I'm guessing you failed to include my recent pull requests for the documentation which Kenji merged, see: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/CAFDvkctqW-QDsGLA+Y6z67O686J1W0si2ZeBBF=b05armwn...@mail.gmail.com Kenji merged them after I started building the RC. I'll put them in the next RC.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 11/4/2013 12:42 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: dmd.2.064.dmg There now. and dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz are missing. Seems to no longer be in 2.064. The installer builder was changed. The naming scheme is inconsistent. I don't know if they follow a platform specific naming scheme. They don't, but they've followed this pattern since they were originally created by Jordi, and I've left it as is.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 08:03:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz There is always something I broke or overlooked, so let's not make an announcement yet until this is good to go. The web site needs updating, too. FreeBSD libphobos2.a not updated in 2.064 betas (and now in the release candidate, too): http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11413 I don't have a FreeBSD system to test whether anything actually works, but a 23M half-year-old standard library file in the zip-archive looks just plain wrong. No library updates since February?..
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 08:03:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz There is always something I broke or overlooked, so let's not make an announcement yet until this is good to go. The web site needs updating, too. I still have a closure bug. Dustmite is running on it right now.
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-04 09:03, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz There is always something I broke or overlooked, so let's not make an announcement yet until this is good to go. The web site needs updating, too. dmd.2.064.dmg and dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz are missing. The naming scheme is inconsistent. I don't know if they follow a platform specific naming scheme. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-04 09:03, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz There is always something I broke or overlooked, so let's not make an announcement yet until this is good to go. The web site needs updating, too. You might want to name the release candidates properly and uniquely, just as you started to do with the betas. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 08:35:26 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-11-04 09:03, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz Another 5 months waiting? http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11365
Re: dmd 2.064 release candidate 1
On 2013-11-04 09:03, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-i386.pkg.tar.xz http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064-0-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz There is always something I broke or overlooked, so let's not make an announcement yet until this is good to go. The web site needs updating, too. Still no dmd.conf or 64bit binaries for FreeBSD. Based on the time you sent this I'm guessing you failed to include my recent pull requests for the documentation which Kenji merged, see: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/CAFDvkctqW-QDsGLA+Y6z67O686J1W0si2ZeBBF=b05armwn...@mail.gmail.com -- /Jacob Carlborg
