www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Problem with .deb packages

reply Bruno Deligny <bruno.deligny gmail.com> writes:
When i try to install dmd1 or dmd2 on my ubuntu i386 with the deb 
packages on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/download.html, it says "Error : 
incorrect Architecture « amd64 »"

The packages were built for the amd64 architecture.
May 02 2009
parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 14:57:43 +0200, Bruno Deligny wrote:


 When i try to install dmd1 or dmd2 on my ubuntu i386 with the deb
 packages on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/download.html, it says "Error :
 incorrect Architecture « amd64 »"
 
 The packages were built for the amd64 architecture.


I don't know how the packages were built for amd64, there only i386 
packages. You have to provide dpkg the --force-architecture switch.
dpkg --force-architecture -i ...deb
May 02 2009
parent reply Bruno Deligny <bruno.deligny gmail.com> writes:
Jesse Phillips a écrit :

 On Sat, 02 May 2009 14:57:43 +0200, Bruno Deligny wrote:
 

 When i try to install dmd1 or dmd2 on my ubuntu i386 with the deb
 packages on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/download.html, it says "Error :
 incorrect Architecture « amd64 »"

 The packages were built for the amd64 architecture.


 
 I don't know how the packages were built for amd64, there only i386 
 packages. You have to provide dpkg the --force-architecture switch.
 dpkg --force-architecture -i ...deb


The packages are still broken. I dont know who did it but we can't let 
that on the website.

It's hard to persuade people to use D if packages are broken and there 
isn't Windows installer. I think a lot of people dont even try by seeing 
that.
May 24 2009
next sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
 The packages are still broken. I dont know who did it but we can't let 
 that on the website.
 
 It's hard to persuade people to use D if packages are broken and there 
 isn't Windows installer. I think a lot of people dont even try by seeing 
 that.


You can bet on that. It makes you wonder how whoever assembled the 
package tested it. Did you just go with --force-all because he couldn't 
figure out various things about the package system? What the heck did he 
do? And why the hell is it not fixed yet?

Providing broken packages is as nice to the user as providing virus 
infected .exe files.

Now the irony is, that Wlater wouldn't even allow Debian to redistribute 
a properly packaged dmd... (if Debian wanted to)
May 24 2009
parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
grauzone wrote:

 ...
 
 Now the irony is, that Wlater wouldn't even allow Debian to redistribute
 a properly packaged dmd... (if Debian wanted to)


Speak ye of the evil Wizard Wlater, previous servant of the dark empire
of Sym'n'tek?  :3

As for the distribution problem, I think it's because Walter *can't*
allow it to be freely redistributed.
May 24 2009
parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:

 
 grauzone wrote:

 ...

 Now the irony is, that Wlater wouldn't even allow Debian to redistribute
 a properly packaged dmd... (if Debian wanted to)


 
 Speak ye of the evil Wizard Wlater, previous servant of the dark empire
 of Sym'n'tek?  :3


Oops.


 As for the distribution problem, I think it's because Walter *can't*
 allow it to be freely redistributed.


Why not? It can't be for license reasons?
May 24 2009
next sibling parent Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
grauzone wrote:

 Daniel Keep wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 ...

 Now the irony is, that Wlater wouldn't even allow Debian to redistribute
 a properly packaged dmd... (if Debian wanted to)


 Speak ye of the evil Wizard Wlater, previous servant of the dark empire
 of Sym'n'tek?  :3


 
 Oops.
 

 As for the distribution problem, I think it's because Walter *can't*
 allow it to be freely redistributed.


 
 Why not? It can't be for license reasons?


I don't think Walter has complete ownership over all of the code.
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent reply Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
grauzone Wrote:


 Daniel Keep wrote:

 
 grauzone wrote:

 ...

 Now the irony is, that Wlater wouldn't even allow Debian to redistribute
 a properly packaged dmd... (if Debian wanted to)


 
 Speak ye of the evil Wizard Wlater, previous servant of the dark empire
 of Sym'n'tek?  :3


 
 Oops.
 

 As for the distribution problem, I think it's because Walter *can't*
 allow it to be freely redistributed.


 
 Why not? It can't be for license reasons?


Sadly, that's exactly why. The backend is under restrictions Walter can't
control. For a sillier example, there's a disclaimer that the code is not
intended to work after 1999.
May 24 2009
parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Jason House wrote:

 grauzone Wrote:
 

 Daniel Keep wrote:

 grauzone wrote:

 ...

 Now the irony is, that Wlater wouldn't even allow Debian to redistribute
 a properly packaged dmd... (if Debian wanted to)


 Speak ye of the evil Wizard Wlater, previous servant of the dark empire
 of Sym'n'tek?  :3


 Oops.


 As for the distribution problem, I think it's because Walter *can't*
 allow it to be freely redistributed.


 Why not? It can't be for license reasons?


 
 Sadly, that's exactly why. The backend is under restrictions Walter can't
control. For a sillier example, there's a disclaimer that the code is not
intended to work after 1999.


Is that really so? I would have guessed that this restriction is only 
for redistributing the backend source. I mean, when dmd still came 
without the backend source, it was shipped without the backend license.
May 24 2009
prev sibling parent Michael P. <baseball.mjp hotmail.com> writes:
Bruno Deligny Wrote:


 Jesse Phillips a écrit :

 On Sat, 02 May 2009 14:57:43 +0200, Bruno Deligny wrote:
 

 When i try to install dmd1 or dmd2 on my ubuntu i386 with the deb
 packages on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/download.html, it says "Error :
 incorrect Architecture « amd64 »"

 The packages were built for the amd64 architecture.


 
 I don't know how the packages were built for amd64, there only i386 
 packages. You have to provide dpkg the --force-architecture switch.
 dpkg --force-architecture -i ...deb


 
 The packages are still broken. I dont know who did it but we can't let 
 that on the website.
 
 It's hard to persuade people to use D if packages are broken and there 
 isn't Windows installer. I think a lot of people dont even try by seeing 
 that.


Would this be worthy of a bugzilla report?
I encountered this too when I tried to install DMD using the .deb packages.
May 24 2009