On 05/11/2013 22:08, Walter Bright wrote:
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
Dylan Knutson, el 16 de December a las 23:03 me escribiste:
On Monday, 16 December 2013 at 12:09:13 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
Yeah, and this approach of compiling the compilers, even when it
might
be useful, seems overkill and a bit abusive for Travis. I would
contact
those guys, maybe
On 2013-12-16 00:31, Dylan Knutson wrote:
Hello,
I was hoping for Travis-CI to provide a set of D compilers for building
projects written in D, but alas, they do not.
So, here's a small skeleton project that I'm using for testing my D
projects with DMD 2.064.2 and LDC 0.12.1.
It should
for testing my D
projects with DMD 2.064.2 and LDC 0.12.1.
It should be straightforward to bring in the relevant parts of the
.travis.yml and Makefile into another project; just copy over the
.travis_scripts folder, the install and env portions of the config in
.travis.yml and it should be good to go
On 2013-12-16 12:24, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Yeah, and this approach of compiling the compilers, even when it might
be useful, seems overkill and a bit abusive for Travis. I would contact
those guys, maybe they are willing to add D support, I guess it
shouldn't be that hard.
Now when I think
On Monday, 16 December 2013 at 07:34:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
We really need to get officially support for D in Travis. I've
been thinking about this for a while but haven't done anything
about it so far.
Agreed; this was just a stopgap for at least being able to use
Travis with my
On Monday, 16 December 2013 at 12:09:13 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
Yeah, and this approach of compiling the compilers, even when
it might
be useful, seems overkill and a bit abusive for Travis. I would
contact
those guys, maybe they are willing to add D support, I guess it
shouldn't be that
On Sunday, 15 December 2013 at 23:31:48 UTC, Dylan Knutson wrote:
Hello,
I was hoping for Travis-CI to provide a set of D compilers for
building projects written in D, but alas, they do not.
So, here's a small skeleton project that I'm using for testing
my D projects with DMD 2.064.2
Hello,
I was hoping for Travis-CI to provide a set of D compilers for
building projects written in D, but alas, they do not.
So, here's a small skeleton project that I'm using for testing my
D projects with DMD 2.064.2 and LDC 0.12.1.
It should be straightforward to bring in the relevant
On 2013-12-16 00:31, Dylan Knutson wrote:
Hello,
I was hoping for Travis-CI to provide a set of D compilers for building
projects written in D, but alas, they do not.
So, here's a small skeleton project that I'm using for testing my D
projects with DMD 2.064.2 and LDC 0.12.1.
It should
On 2013-11-05 23:08, Walter Bright wrote:
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
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
On 11 Nov 2013 20:32, Jordi Sayol g.sa...@yahoo.es wrote:
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.
Walter said the version number was not updated before compile, sounded like
he preferred not to have to
:
---
%VCINSTALLDIR%\..\VC\bin
---
(full: C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio
12.0\VC\bin)
libs path:
---
%WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64
---
(full: C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows
Kits\8.1\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64)
adding this stuff to sc.ini allows to build with dmd 2.064.2 with
-m64
Can you clarify exactly which version of Visual Studio 2013 you
are using?
Can you also confirm that you can compile and link a C++ console
app using your current installation of vs2013?
BTW, I have noticed that this version was compiled without
-D=PULL93 so transition switch list again only has `tls`. Is
there any specific reason to remove this switch after actual
deprecation? It still can be very useful for porting D1 to D2 :)
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 17:12:07 UTC, tester wrote:
nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the
installer and used the (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i
then replaced all occurences of %VCINSTALLDIR% and
%WindowsSdkDir% with the actual path such as C:\Program Files
On 11/7/13, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
The changelog is missing issue 10700. I though that part was
automatically generated.
The list of issues fixed were generated on October 20th, and that bug
was not marked as fixed in bugzilla at the time. There's likely a set
of additional bugs
On 11/05/2013 11:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
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
On 2013-11-08 19:37, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
The list of issues fixed were generated on October 20th, and that bug
was not marked as fixed in bugzilla at the time. There's likely a set
of additional bugs which are not listed in the changelog, but it's
hard to both autogenerate these and then
On 2013-11-08 14:17, Dicebot wrote:
BTW, I have noticed that this version was compiled without -D=PULL93 so
transition switch list again only has `tls`. Is there any specific
reason to remove this switch after actual deprecation? It still can be
very useful for porting D1 to D2 :)
Yeah, I
how do make that comiler work?
[Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio
2013
this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand
the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs
(user32)
windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:
how do make that comiler work?
[Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio
2013
this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand
the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs
i did that, but it still will not work
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 10:12:29 UTC, evilrat wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:
how do make that comiler work?
[Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual
Studio 2013
this is a desaster for me. was
does not work with the installer either.
that really sucks
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 10:19:03 UTC, tester wrote:
i did that, but it still will not work
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 10:12:29 UTC, evilrat wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:
how do
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 11:42:25 UTC, tester wrote:
does not work with the installer either.
that really sucks
well, this is because most people stick with linux, and i think
there few to noone win8 users. so here is the result ...
yes, that may be true and i understand that there are still
compiler errors.
but the most primitive things that are advertised should work.
something like this would get people fired in our company - and
rightly so.
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 12:06:51 UTC, evilrat wrote:
On Thursday, 7
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
Visual studio doesn't run on Linux, there are very many windows users 64bit
was first supported on Linux though. submit a patch for the installer, we
all have other jobs.
On 7 Nov 2013 14:10, evilrat evilrat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 11:42:25 UTC, tester wrote:
does
On 11/7/2013 12:58 AM, tester wrote:
how do make that comiler work?
[Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013
this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and
run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32)
windoes8.1, visual
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:
how do make that comiler work?
[Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio
2013
this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand
the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 16:25:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:
how do make that comiler work?
[Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual
Studio 2013
this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand
yes i tried that.
i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled. itried it with
the zip file.
nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the installer
and used the (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced
all occurences of %VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir% with the
On 11/7/2013 9:12 AM, tester wrote:
i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled. itried it with the zip file.
nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the installer and used the
(bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced all occurences of
%VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir%
1.) it didn't find user32
2.) it worked with 2063 perfectly - used the zip files download,
adaped the ini. that was under 8.0/visual 2012.
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 17:47:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/7/2013 9:12 AM, tester wrote:
i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled.
On 11/7/2013 10:04 AM, tester wrote:
1.) it didn't find user32
Please, I need to know exactly what happened. Run it from the command line,
cutpaste the screen output.
2.) it worked with 2063 perfectly - used the zip files download, adaped the ini.
that was under 8.0/visual 2012.
On
Do you have this line in your sc.ini file?
LIB=%LIB%;%WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64
If you do a file search of C:\Program Files (x86) for User32.lib
where do you find them?
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 01:12:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I had assumed that there was a 2.063.1 prior to 2.063.2 but
clearly wasn't
paying enough attention.
- Jonathan M Davis
Found the explanation:
http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-internals/2013-June/006569.html
The
yes, except hat i replaced %WindowsSdkDir% with the path to that
directory
On Friday, 8 November 2013 at 02:45:45 UTC, Nicholas Londey wrote:
Do you have this line in your sc.ini file?
LIB=%LIB%;%WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64
If you do a file search of C:\Program Files (x86) for
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
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
Arch Linux package has been updated.
Was awaiting for some of good stuff from this release for a long
time :)
There are two extremely disappointing things though:
1)
We still can't get versioning right. Walter has treated release
candidate as a release which is why we have 2.064.2 right now
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
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 12:02:48 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
Release notes?
http://dlang.org/changelog
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 12:44:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 12:02:48 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
Release notes?
http://dlang.org/changelog
There is a a bug in the new eponymous syntax example in the
changelog:
template isIntOrFloat(T)
{
static if
Dicebot, el 6 de November a las 12:43 me escribiste:
Arch Linux package has been updated.
Was awaiting for some of good stuff from this release for a long
time :)
There are two extremely disappointing things though:
1)
We still can't get versioning right. Walter has treated release
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
06-Nov-2013 02:08, Walter Bright пишет:
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
On 11/6/13, Szymon Gatner noem...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a a bug in the new eponymous syntax example in the
changelog
This was fixed, the website hasn't been updated.
to pull them
in
sync. The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the
one used in
the
past. I don't see why the file would need to differ between
a Windows
and Linux
box.
For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the
windows version
and uploaded it.
Perfect. Thank you
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:24:03 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
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
I'm confused. The changelog pages links to
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip, while the download page
links to
http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2013/dmd.2.064.2.zip. Which
is the correct file/version?
Also, at least on OS X (with both versions) I get a link error in
the wrap
On 11/6/2013 5:16 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
In dmd.2.064.2.zip, src/VERSION contains 2.064. Should be 2.064.2
I deliberately didn't do that because it would have required rebuilding all the
binaries just for that.
On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1.
Was that intended or just an error?
It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been confusing, hence
2.064 = 2.064.2
On 11/6/2013 11:22 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I confirm that. Walter, could this have something to do with the new approach to
compiling templates?
It might. You can confirm by seeing if it works with -allinst switch.
On 11/6/13 11:56 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/6/2013 11:22 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I confirm that. Walter, could this have something to do with the new
approach to
compiling templates?
It might. You can confirm by seeing if it works with -allinst switch.
I confirm it works when
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 19:57:40 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and
not 1.
Was that intended or just an error?
It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:06:54 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/6/13 11:56 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
It might. You can confirm by seeing if it works with -allinst
switch.
I confirm it works when compiled with -allinst.
Is that switch new? It is not documented in the
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:08:50 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
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
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:27:01 +, Jonathan Crapuchettes wrote:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:08:50 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
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
Is it possible to build something like wrap, so that it can be
given a wrapping class instead of a wrapping interface?
I was trying to build something very similar to wrap, and at
first glance it seems like wrap might suit me, except that I
wanted to wrap the wolf in the class Sheeps clothes,
-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
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:11:13 UTC, Aleksandar Ruzicic
wrote:
versions must be marked with rc, as betas are marked with b
flag. Something like 2.064-rc.1, 2.064-rc.2, ... 2.064
(stable/major release), 2.064.1 (patch release), ...
This (-rc.xx) is how RC versions should be marked as
On 2013-11-06 20:57, Walter Bright wrote:
It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been confusing,
hence 2.064 = 2.064.2
That's what's happening if you start to add new digits. The first
release should have possibly been 2.064.0. BTW, there was a 2.063.1, if
I recall
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:46:23 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
Is it possible to build something like wrap, so that it can be
given a wrapping class instead of a wrapping interface?
I was trying to build something very similar to wrap, and at
first glance it seems like wrap might suit me,
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
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
Walter Bright, el 6 de November a las 12:01 me escribiste:
On 11/6/2013 5:16 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
In dmd.2.064.2.zip, src/VERSION contains 2.064. Should be 2.064.2
I deliberately didn't do that because it would have required
rebuilding all the binaries just for that.
And that's bad
Walter Bright, el 6 de November a las 11:57 me escribiste:
On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1.
Was that intended or just an error?
It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been
confusing, hence
Jacob Carlborg, el 6 de November a las 22:06 me escribiste:
On 2013-11-06 20:57, Walter Bright wrote:
It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been confusing,
hence 2.064 = 2.064.2
That's what's happening if you start to add new digits. The first
release should have
, el 6 de November a las 21:53 me escribiste:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:11:13 UTC, Aleksandar Ruzicic
wrote:
versions must be marked with rc, as betas are marked with b
flag. Something like 2.064-rc.1, 2.064-rc.2, ... 2.064
(stable/major release), 2.064.1 (patch release), ...
On Thursday, November 07, 2013 00:11:37 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 6 de November a las 11:57 me escribiste:
On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1.
Was that intended or just an error?
It was
On 11/6/2013 3:43 PM, nazriel wrote:
Good job everyone!
DPaste is already using it
Nice!
On 11/6/2013 3:20 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 6 de November a las 12:01 me escribiste:
On 11/6/2013 5:16 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
In dmd.2.064.2.zip, src/VERSION contains 2.064. Should be 2.064.2
I deliberately didn't do that because it would have required
rebuilding all
On 2013-11-05 23:08, Walter Bright wrote:
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
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
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:10:53 UTC, Joshua Niehus wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Ok, this is it:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
Not found :(
nvm, just started working...
apologies
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Ok, this is it:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
Not found :(
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2
still open :(
On 11/5/2013 2:10 PM, Joshua Niehus wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Ok, this is it:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
Not found :(
It's uploading as I type this. Should be up in a minute or two.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
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
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
What's up with the Windows installer? It appears to be using an
old version without all the improvements I've been making but
with some new changes added.
On 11/5/2013 2:21 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
What's up with the Windows installer? It appears to be using an old version
without all the improvements I've been making but with some new changes added.
It should be using the one on the 2.064 branch on github. Can you check that?
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:36:43 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:24:14 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/5/2013 2:21 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
What's up with the Windows installer? It appears to be using
an old version
without all the improvements I've been
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.
Maybe he should start doing pull
requests like
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:46:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
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
would need to differ between a
Windows and Linux
box.
For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows
version and uploaded it.
Perfect. Thank you.
.
For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows version and
uploaded it.
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
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
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
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
always been the one used in
the
past. I don't see why the file would need to differ between a Windows
and Linux
box.
For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows version
and uploaded it.
Perfect. Thank you.
Seems to work on my system.
Notices:
* no 64bit curl.lib
Btw.
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
http
Am Tue, 05 Nov 2013 23:24:02 +0100
schrieb Orvid King blah38...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
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
On Tuesday, November 05, 2013 23:24:02 Orvid King wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
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
to pull them
in
sync. The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the
one used in
the
past. I don't see why the file would need to differ between
a Windows
and Linux
box.
For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the
windows version
and uploaded it.
Perfect. Thank you
rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows
version and uploaded it.
Perfect. Thank you.
Seems to work on my system.
Notices:
* no 64bit curl.lib :(
The library used by the auto tester is here:
http://downloads.dlang.org/other/curl-7.28.1-devel-rainer.win64.zip
* gcstub64
94 matches
Mail list logo
