digitalmars.D - Is it possible for the deimos repositories to be added to the dub
- Gary Willoughby (7/7) Jan 05 2014 Is it possible for the deimos[1] repositories to be added to the
- Kelet (11/19) Jan 05 2014 Yes,
- Kelet (11/11) Jan 05 2014 It is also worth noting that specifying git repository URLs
- Jacob Carlborg (4/5) Jan 06 2014 I think we should close down Deimos now that we have Dub.
- Gary Willoughby (2/5) Jan 06 2014 Who currently controls deimos?
- Jacob Carlborg (4/5) Jan 06 2014 The D core team.
- David Nadlinger (6/9) Jan 06 2014 I don't think so. Having a curated set of bindings that follow a
- ilya-stromberg (6/14) Jan 06 2014 Unfortunately, Deimos does not good enough.
- David Nadlinger (37/43) Jan 06 2014 So there is a single library that is not "good enough". Where is
- Jacob Carlborg (4/7) Jan 06 2014 They already look differently.
- David Nadlinger (3/9) Jan 06 2014 So what?
- Jacob Carlborg (6/7) Jan 06 2014 I thought that was what you wanted to avoid. And I sounded like you
- Gary Willoughby (3/3) Jan 07 2014 Can we get one of the core team to make a statement whether or
- Gary Willoughby (4/7) Jan 07 2014 Thing is i don't want to fork deimos.X11, add the package.json
- Dicebot (4/12) Jan 07 2014 All bindings have some author who has originally contributed
- Andrei Alexandrescu (4/6) Jan 07 2014 Without knowing many details about what that would entail, I think they
- ilya-stromberg (9/18) Jan 06 2014 Sorry, it's my mistake. I also used James Miller's `dfcgi`
- Mike Parker (20/25) Jan 06 2014 Derelict 3 is actually at [1] and is soon to be deprecated in its
- ponce (7/12) Jan 07 2014 As Mike explained, the situation might be simplified a bit soon,
- Andrej Mitrovic (4/7) Jan 07 2014 Yep. I visit this page daily: http://code.dlang.org/?sort=added&category...
- Dicebot (6/14) Jan 06 2014 As have been already mentioned, problem is there is no actual
- Andrej Mitrovic (9/11) Jan 26 2014 It looks like people are duplicating effort creating things that were
- Andrej Mitrovic (3/5) Jan 26 2014 In addition there's also dynamic bindings to glfw v3 here:
- John Colvin (2/7) Jan 26 2014 that should be: https://github.com/DerelictOrg/DerelictGLFW3
Is it possible for the deimos[1] repositories to be added to the dub registry[2] please? I'm working on a project that uses the deimos x11 bindings and it would be nice to handle building the project using dub. Also, i won't have to distribute the x11 bindings with my project. [1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos [2]: http://code.dlang.org/
Jan 05 2014
On Sunday, 5 January 2014 at 20:48:00 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:Is it possible for the deimos[1] repositories to be added to the dub registry[2] please? I'm working on a project that uses the deimos x11 bindings and it would be nice to handle building the project using dub. Also, i won't have to distribute the x11 bindings with my project. [1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos [2]: http://code.dlang.org/Yes, A lot of Deimos repositories are already in the DUB registry. I think they are handled individually and not collectively. I would imagine forking the repository, creating a DUB package configuration, and submitting a pull request would be the best course of action here. If the pull request is not accepted in a reasonable and timely manner I don't think anyone would object to you adding the forked repository to the DUB registry. Regards, Kelet
Jan 05 2014
It is also worth noting that specifying git repository URLs rather than being locked into the registry should be added to DUB eventually[1]. Until then, you can always fork it, add a DUB package configuration, and install the package locally or use the "complex variant"[2] of DUB version specifications to use a local path. [1]: https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/issues/104 [2]: http://code.dlang.org/package-format Search for "complex variant" Regards, Kelet
Jan 05 2014
On 2014-01-05 21:57, Kelet wrote:A lot of Deimos repositories are already in the DUB registry.I think we should close down Deimos now that we have Dub. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Jan 06 2014
On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 09:52:53 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:On 2014-01-05 21:57, Kelet wrote:Who currently controls deimos?A lot of Deimos repositories are already in the DUB registry.I think we should close down Deimos now that we have Dub.
Jan 06 2014
On 2014-01-06 11:29, Gary Willoughby wrote:Who currently controls deimos?The D core team. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Jan 06 2014
On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 09:52:53 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:On 2014-01-05 21:57, Kelet wrote:I don't think so. Having a curated set of bindings that follow a common quality standard is something I'd regard as desirable. The first thing I would think about modifying with Dub gaining adoption is actually the Phobos inclusion process… DavidA lot of Deimos repositories are already in the DUB registry.I think we should close down Deimos now that we have Dub.
Jan 06 2014
On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 16:27:14 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 09:52:53 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:Unfortunately, Deimos does not good enough. I used `libfcgi` ~2 years ago, and it was completely broken (segmentation fault after 1-st GC memory free). So, I agree with Jacob: we should close down Deimos. As alternative, we should use the same review process as for Phobos.On 2014-01-05 21:57, Kelet wrote:I don't think so. Having a curated set of bindings that follow a common quality standard is something I'd regard as desirable.A lot of Deimos repositories are already in the DUB registry.I think we should close down Deimos now that we have Dub.
Jan 06 2014
On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 16:49:44 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:Unfortunately, Deimos does not good enough. I used `libfcgi` ~2 years ago, and it was completely broken (segmentation fault after 1-st GC memory free). So, I agree with Jacob: we should close down Deimos. As alternative, we should use the same review process as for Phobos.So there is a single library that is not "good enough". Where is your bug report? Your pull request? I just had a look at the libfcgi repository, and it seems like Jonathan recommends building the binding with "ldc2 -shared" in the readme. There are two things wrong with this: 1) -shared is not yet supported in LDC for D2 (it will lead to GC-related crashes), and Jonathan knows this. 2) Deimos headers should *never* require actually building something, they should be "header-only", in C terms. So, yes, there are apparently problems with getting the Deimos idea across (and Walter's code review practices), but I don't see how this justifies ditching the whole idea. The idea behind Deimos is that there should be a single of plain, "no-frills" C bindings, because it makes exactly zero sense to duplicate work here. Other people can build on these for higher-level libraries. Whether these are managed in one central place or in separate repositories doesn't matter in the end; the thing that counts is that we have a common understanding of how bindings that are "officially" accepted are supposed look like. If every single C binding on code.dlang.org follows a different naming scheme, loading convention, …, just using a C library will become a lot less of a plug-and-play experience than it could be. Yes, there are currently issues with the way Deimos is handled, starting with the fact that a ridiculously small number of people actually has push access to them (e.g. I have access to all the D-P-L ones, but not to Deimos). In fact, I think it might even make sense idea to give the original creator of a binding write access to the repository after the initial review is complete, which ensures that the author is familiar with the Deimos conventions. There isn't really a lot to get wrong with C bindings that would necessitate much review afterwards. Also, we need to improve the documentation about the Deimos standards and process. But still, I don't think we should outright ditch the idea at this point; the situation certainly won't get better without Deimos being in the picture. David
Jan 06 2014
On 2014-01-06 19:00, David Nadlinger wrote:the thing that counts is that we have a common understanding of how bindings that are "officially" accepted are supposed look like.They already look differently. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Jan 06 2014
On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 20:40:28 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:On 2014-01-06 19:00, David Nadlinger wrote:So what? Davidthe thing that counts is that we have a common understanding of how bindings that are "officially" accepted are supposed look like.They already look differently.
Jan 06 2014
On 2014-01-06 22:16, David Nadlinger wrote:So what?I thought that was what you wanted to avoid. And I sounded like you thought that just because the bindings are in the Deimos repository they all would look similar. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Jan 06 2014
Can we get one of the core team to make a statement whether or not the deimos bindings will be added to the dub repository please?
Jan 07 2014
On Tuesday, 7 January 2014 at 11:30:30 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:Can we get one of the core team to make a statement whether or not the deimos bindings will be added to the dub repository please?Thing is i don't want to fork deimos.X11, add the package.json and submit it if someone else is going to add all the bindings under a common username/format etc.
Jan 07 2014
On Tuesday, 7 January 2014 at 11:32:42 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:On Tuesday, 7 January 2014 at 11:30:30 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:All bindings have some author who has originally contributed those. I think it is best to contact him and ask about adding dub support.Can we get one of the core team to make a statement whether or not the deimos bindings will be added to the dub repository please?Thing is i don't want to fork deimos.X11, add the package.json and submit it if someone else is going to add all the bindings under a common username/format etc.
Jan 07 2014
On 1/7/14 3:30 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:Can we get one of the core team to make a statement whether or not the deimos bindings will be added to the dub repository please?Without knowing many details about what that would entail, I think they should be added. Andrei
Jan 07 2014
On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 18:00:06 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 16:49:44 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:Sorry, it's my mistake. I also used James Miller's `dfcgi` high-level library, it has the error, not `libfcgi`. I didn't use `libfcgi` too long and forgot some details. But we have a lot of different projects for C bindings, for example Derelict3 and derelict_extras: https://github.com/DerelictOrg https://github.com/p0nce?tab=repositories How can we join it at the single place?Unfortunately, Deimos does not good enough. I used `libfcgi` ~2 years ago, and it was completely broken (segmentation fault after 1-st GC memory free). So, I agree with Jacob: we should close down Deimos. As alternative, we should use the same review process as for Phobos.So there is a single library that is not "good enough". Where is your bug report? Your pull request?
Jan 06 2014
On 1/7/2014 8:34 AM, ilya-stromberg wrote:But we have a lot of different projects for C bindings, for example Derelict3 and derelict_extras: https://github.com/DerelictOrg https://github.com/p0nce?tab=repositoriesDerelict 3 is actually at [1] and is soon to be deprecated in its entirety in favor of DerelictOrg. derelict-extras is *not* a project. It's just a naming convention some people, including ponce, have been using for their dub packages when they make bindings that use DerelictUtil. [1] https://github.com/aldacron/Derelict3/How can we join it at the single place?I created DerelictOrg with the intention that is will be an umbrella organization for dynamic bindings, all of which use DerelictUtil. Anyone who wants to bring their dynamic binding in can, as long as they agree to follow some simple rules for commonality. Soon I will be speaking to ponce and others about bring their existing bindings into the organization. The bindings in Deimos are, from what I've seen, all static. I do not believe dynamic and static bindings should reside under the same roof. They are too different in their usage. That said, with dub on the scene, I don't really think it matters where a project's source code is located. The dub registry puts them all virtually in one place anyway. From a user's perspective, something like DerelictOrg is an extra layer of convenience, but not anything I would consider necessary. It's more of a benefit for the maintainers, as they are able to more easily pool their resources.
Jan 06 2014
On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 23:34:38 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:But we have a lot of different projects for C bindings, for example Derelict3 and derelict_extras: https://github.com/DerelictOrg https://github.com/p0nce?tab=repositories How can we join it at the single place?As Mike explained, the situation might be simplified a bit soon, and they are already in a single place, the dub registry (which is a pleasant site for shopping libraries). Just last week, this one popped out: https://github.com/biozic/quantities It would be way harder to discover it else.
Jan 07 2014
On 1/7/14, ponce <contact gam3sfrommars.fr> wrote:Just last week, this one popped out: https://github.com/biozic/quantities It would be way harder to discover it else.Yep. I visit this page daily: http://code.dlang.org/?sort=added&category= All it's missing is perhaps an RSS feed (but this was already talked about, maybe it will be coming later).
Jan 07 2014
On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 16:27:14 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:On Monday, 6 January 2014 at 09:52:53 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:As have been already mentioned, problem is there is no actual quality standard guaranteed by Phobos, just a maintenance delay because repo is out of control of author. Deimos has very floating nature contrary to Phobos and we don't have workforce to re-review packages there all the time.On 2014-01-05 21:57, Kelet wrote:I don't think so. Having a curated set of bindings that follow a common quality standard is something I'd regard as desirable.A lot of Deimos repositories are already in the DUB registry.I think we should close down Deimos now that we have Dub.
Jan 06 2014
On 1/5/14, Gary Willoughby <dev nomad.so> wrote:Is it possible for the deimos[1] repositories to be added to the dub registry[2] please?It looks like people are duplicating effort creating things that were already created. E.g. recently someone made this: https://github.com/APott/glfw3-wrap But glfw already has a full binding, for both v2 and v3: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/glfw I've CC'ed Alan Potteiger to make him know. Related to GLFW, there's an OOP wrapper here: https://github.com/Dav1dde/glwtf
Jan 26 2014
On 1/26/14, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:But glfw already has a full binding, for both v2 and v3: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/glfwIn addition there's also dynamic bindings to glfw v3 here: https://github.com/aldacron/Derelict3/tree/master/import/derelict/glfw3
Jan 26 2014
On Sunday, 26 January 2014 at 12:27:00 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:On 1/26/14, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:that should be: https://github.com/DerelictOrg/DerelictGLFW3But glfw already has a full binding, for both v2 and v3: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/glfwIn addition there's also dynamic bindings to glfw v3 here: https://github.com/aldacron/Derelict3/tree/master/import/derelict/glfw3
Jan 26 2014