www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Hello,


We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference compiler of the 
D programming language, is now available for download for OSX, Windows, 
and a variety of Unixen:

http://dlang.org/download.html

This release brings unprecedented progress over the previous ones, owing 
to a explosive increase in collaboration and a concerted ongoing effort 
to improve process. In all, we've added 260 distinct improvements over 
the exactly 100 days that passed since 2.062. They address language 
definition issues, fix bugs in the compiler and standard library, or add 
new standard library artifacts. For the full story, mosey to the 
redesigned changelog:

http://dlang.org/changelog.html

which itemizes all improvements and offers rationale and examples 
wherever appropriate.

We'll be looking forward for the gdc and ldc compilers to adapt the 
2.063 reference front-end to the gcc and llvm backends, respectively.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all contributors for this 
release, which is a massive accomplishment and a resolute step toward 
fully realizing D's potential. Let's keep up the good work!


Til next time,

Andrei
May 30 2013
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Discuss and vote on reddit!

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1fc9jt/dmd_2063_the_d_programming_language_reference/


Andrei
May 30 2013
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
And hackernews!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5793041


Andrei
May 30 2013
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/30/13 11:32 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

And Facebook!

https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/648837555129929


Andrei
May 30 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:16:28 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog:

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html


Holy changelog!  That is awesome.

Please send kudos to whoever took the time to create that.

-Steve
May 30 2013
next sibling parent reply "F i L" <witte2008 gmail.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 Holy changelog!  That is awesome.

 Please send kudos to whoever took the time to create that.


+1, excellent work on that changelog.
May 30 2013
parent "Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 15:31:36 UTC, F i L wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 Holy changelog!  That is awesome.

 Please send kudos to whoever took the time to create that.


 +1, excellent work on that changelog.


This is a really nice changelog. The change and rational section 
is perfect!
May 30 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.net> writes:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 15:25:39 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:

 On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:16:28 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog:

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html


 Holy changelog!  That is awesome.

 Please send kudos to whoever took the time to create that.


That would be Andrej Mitrovic.  I agree, he's done a great job 
with it!

It took a really long time to load, though.  It's like the whole 
internet is stopping by to gaze in awe upon our beautiful 
changelog. :)

Lars
May 30 2013
prev sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer, el 30 de May a las 11:25 me escribiste:

 On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:16:28 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 

For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog:

http://dlang.org/changelog.html


 
 Holy changelog!  That is awesome.


I said it already in the beta ML, but I'll repeat it here. Awesome step
forward with the changelog, is extremely useful, exactly what
a developer updating the compiler want to see.

Thanks a lot!

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not get mad with others
Because they know more than you
It is not their fault
May 30 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Gary Willoughby" <dev kalekold.net> writes:
For the full story, mosey to the

 redesigned changelog:

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html


Awesome! Thanks.
May 30 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 30.05.2013 17:16, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:

 Hello,


 We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference compiler of the
 D programming language, is now available for download for OSX, Windows,
 and a variety of Unixen:

 http://dlang.org/download.html

 This release brings unprecedented progress over the previous ones, owing
 to a explosive increase in collaboration and a concerted ongoing effort
 to improve process. In all, we've added 260 distinct improvements over
 the exactly 100 days that passed since 2.062. They address language
 definition issues, fix bugs in the compiler and standard library, or add
 new standard library artifacts. For the full story, mosey to the
 redesigned changelog:

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html

 which itemizes all improvements and offers rationale and examples
 wherever appropriate.

 We'll be looking forward for the gdc and ldc compilers to adapt the
 2.063 reference front-end to the gcc and llvm backends, respectively.

 I would like to take this opportunity to thank all contributors for this
 release, which is a massive accomplishment and a resolute step toward
 fully realizing D's potential. Let's keep up the good work!


 Til next time,

 Andrei


Great! Getting it now :)
May 30 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
On 2013-05-30, 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog:

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html


Kudos to Andrej for this. *This* is how a great changelog looks.

-- 
Simen
May 30 2013
next sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
30-May-2013 21:16, Simen Kjaeraas пишет:

 On 2013-05-30, 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog:

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html


 Kudos to Andrej for this. *This* is how a great changelog looks.


Joins the cheering crowd :)

Nice job, Andrej!

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
May 30 2013
parent reply "Diggory" <diggsey googlemail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 17:28:49 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

 30-May-2013 21:16, Simen Kjaeraas пишет:

 On 2013-05-30, 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog:

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html


 Kudos to Andrej for this. *This* is how a great changelog 
 looks.


 Joins the cheering crowd :)

 Nice job, Andrej!


Agreed, also very satisfying to see ones own bug fixes in there :P
May 30 2013
parent Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Thu, 30 May 2013 19:36:59 +0200
schrieb "Diggory" <diggsey googlemail.com>:


 On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 17:28:49 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

 30-May-2013 21:16, Simen Kjaeraas =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:

 On 2013-05-30, 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog:

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html


 Kudos to Andrej for this. *This* is how a great changelog=20
 looks.


 Joins the cheering crowd :)

 Nice job, Andrej!


=20
 Agreed, also very satisfying to see ones own bug fixes in there :P


A nice changelog and a nice release afaics ;-)
May 30 2013
prev sibling parent Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> writes:
W dniu 30.05.2013 19:16, Simen Kjaeraas pisze:

 On 2013-05-30, 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog:

 http://dlang.org/changelog.html


 Kudos to Andrej for this. *This* is how a great changelog looks.


This is a very pleasant surprise to see such detailed changelog!
May 30 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Mafi" <mafi example.org> writes:
What a great release! Great work!

I really like the new langugage changes. One change caught my 

member function qualifier". Does this mean that const/immutable 
ranges can implement a useful opSlice? Like

struct MyRange!T {
   T[] data;

   MyRange!(ElementType!data) opSlice(this T)() {
     return MyRange(data);
   }
}

So that given the other range primitves this will work:

const myConstRange = MyRange([5, 6, 7, 8]);
foreach(x; myConstRange) {}

Could this be made work with 2.063?

Mafi
May 30 2013
next sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 20:00:24 Mafi wrote:

 What a great release! Great work!
 
 I really like the new langugage changes. One change caught my

 member function qualifier". Does this mean that const/immutable
 ranges can implement a useful opSlice? Like
 
 struct MyRange!T {
 T[] data;
 
 MyRange!(ElementType!data) opSlice(this T)() {
 return MyRange(data);
 }
 }
 
 So that given the other range primitves this will work:
 
 const myConstRange = MyRange([5, 6, 7, 8]);
 foreach(x; myConstRange) {}
 
 Could this be made work with 2.063?


No, because you still have the fundamental problem that MyRange!T and MyRange!
(const T) are different types which potentially have no relation to one another 
aside from the fact that they were generated by the same template. In the 
general case, you can't just convert MyRange!T to MyRange!(const T). It only
works with arrays because the compiler understands them.

- Jonathan M Davis
May 30 2013
parent reply "Mafi" <mafi example.org> writes:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 18:09:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Thursday, May 30, 2013 20:00:24 Mafi wrote:

 What a great release! Great work!
 
 I really like the new langugage changes. One change caught my

 member function qualifier". Does this mean that const/immutable
 ranges can implement a useful opSlice? Like
 
 struct MyRange!T {
 T[] data;
 
 MyRange!(ElementType!data) opSlice(this T)() {
 return MyRange(data);
 }
 }
 
 So that given the other range primitves this will work:
 
 const myConstRange = MyRange([5, 6, 7, 8]);
 foreach(x; myConstRange) {}
 
 Could this be made work with 2.063?


 No, because you still have the fundamental problem that 
 MyRange!T and MyRange!
 (const T) are different types which potentially have no 
 relation to one another
 aside from the fact that they were generated by the same 
 template. In the
 general case, you can't just convert MyRange!T to 
 MyRange!(const T). It only
 works with arrays because the compiler understands them.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Well I'm aware of the fact that MyRange!T and MyRange!const(T) 
could be unrelated types. But they're not and the author the 
range provided a conversion function and called it opSlice(). 
Foreach shouldn't care if they're related or not, it should just 
call opSlice().
May 30 2013
parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 20:39:47 Mafi wrote:

 On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 18:09:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Thursday, May 30, 2013 20:00:24 Mafi wrote:

 What a great release! Great work!
 
 I really like the new langugage changes. One change caught my

 member function qualifier". Does this mean that const/immutable
 ranges can implement a useful opSlice? Like
 
 struct MyRange!T {
 T[] data;
 
 MyRange!(ElementType!data) opSlice(this T)() {
 return MyRange(data);
 }
 }
 
 So that given the other range primitves this will work:
 
 const myConstRange = MyRange([5, 6, 7, 8]);
 foreach(x; myConstRange) {}
 
 Could this be made work with 2.063?


 
 No, because you still have the fundamental problem that
 MyRange!T and MyRange!
 (const T) are different types which potentially have no
 relation to one another
 aside from the fact that they were generated by the same
 template. In the
 general case, you can't just convert MyRange!T to
 MyRange!(const T). It only
 works with arrays because the compiler understands them.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis


 
 Well I'm aware of the fact that MyRange!T and MyRange!const(T)
 could be unrelated types. But they're not and the author the
 range provided a conversion function and called it opSlice().
 Foreach shouldn't care if they're related or not, it should just
 call opSlice().


You still need a way to convert MyRange!T to MyRange!(const T). opSlice won't 
do that magically for you. It'll just have to do that internally. And to be 
truly useful, you need to be able to go from const(MyRange!T) to
MyRange!(const T). You need tail-const:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5377

I don't see how this enhancement could possibly have any effect on any of that. 
At best, it eliminates some code duplication.

- Jonathan M Davis
May 30 2013
prev sibling parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 05/30/2013 08:00 PM, Mafi wrote:

 What a great release! Great work!

 I really like the new langugage changes. One change caught my attention:

 qualifier". Does this mean that const/immutable ranges can implement a
 useful opSlice?  ...


Yes, const/immutable containers are now able to implement a useful 
opSlice without manual duplication.
May 30 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 This release brings unprecedented progress over the previous ones, owing
 to a explosive increase in collaboration and a concerted ongoing effort
 to improve process.


Agreed. And recently we've had an increase in new contributors as well.

Thanks to all for the kind words about the changelog. But don't forget
to thank all the contributors which worked hard on fixing those D
bugs!
May 30 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Rob T" <alanb ucora.com> writes:
Awesome job to all contributors, it's looking much better, and 
yes the change log with examples is a very noticeable part of the 
improvement.

I noted some comments about the server being under too much load. 
Any thought put into adding an official torrent for downloads? 
That may help ease up on the server load for next release 
announcement.

--rt
May 30 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Hello,


We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215

But I can't recreate this in git-head. It must have been a specific
commit the release is based on that introduced this behavior. I don't
know how it went through the autotester unnoticed, this is a pretty
major bug.
May 30 2013
next sibling parent reply "Rob T" <alanb ucora.com> writes:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:04:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

 On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> 
 wrote:

 Hello,


 We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215

 But I can't recreate this in git-head. It must have been a 
 specific
 commit the release is based on that introduced this behavior. I 
 don't
 know how it went through the autotester unnoticed, this is a 
 pretty
 major bug.


Prior to issuing a release like this, it should instead be made 
public as a "stable release candidate" with full installer on the 
downloads page for review by anyone. After the bugs are worked 
out and some time has elapsed, the stable RC is simply declared 
"stable final" and re-released as such with the usual big 
announcement.

--rt
May 30 2013
next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:41:08 +0200
"Rob T" <alanb ucora.com> wrote:


 On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:04:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

 On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> 
 wrote:

 Hello,


 We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215

 But I can't recreate this in git-head. It must have been a 
 specific
 commit the release is based on that introduced this behavior. I 
 don't
 know how it went through the autotester unnoticed, this is a 
 pretty
 major bug.


 
 Prior to issuing a release like this, it should instead be made 
 public as a "stable release candidate" with full installer on the 
 downloads page for review by anyone. After the bugs are worked 
 out and some time has elapsed, the stable RC is simply declared 
 "stable final" and re-released as such with the usual big 
 announcement.
 


That's more-or-less what already happens, the only difference is that
(to my knowledge) there's no link to it on the downloads page.

Although, we probably could use more time between "all known regressions
in beta fixed" and the actual release. Usually it's just the next day.
May 30 2013
parent reply "Rob T" <alanb ucora.com> writes:
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 01:36:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 


 That's more-or-less what already happens, the only difference 
 is that
 (to my knowledge) there's no link to it on the downloads page.

 Although, we probably could use more time between "all known 
 regressions
 in beta fixed" and the actual release. Usually it's just the 
 next day.


Yes, but because there's no link on the main page and no 
installer, the RC's are effectively closed to the public because 
only people in the know will go through the trouble to get the 
RC's and install them.

I'm only talking about when the next release gets very to release 
should something like this be done. It'll make installing a new 
release far less risky business when it goes final. It'll improve 
confidence in the final product and further reduce or completely 
eliminate nasty surprises.

IMO doing this will have a similar positive effect like as we've 
seen with the improved release log.

--rt
May 30 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Fri, 31 May 2013 03:50:51 +0200
"Rob T" <alanb ucora.com> wrote:

 Yes, but because there's no link on the main page and no 
 installer, the RC's are effectively closed to the public because 
 only people in the know will go through the trouble to get the 
 RC's and install them.
 
 I'm only talking about when the next release gets very to release 
 should something like this be done. It'll make installing a new 
 release far less risky business when it goes final. It'll improve 
 confidence in the final product and further reduce or completely 
 eliminate nasty surprises.
 
 IMO doing this will have a similar positive effect like as we've 
 seen with the improved release log.
 
 --rt


Yea, greater visibility for the betas could probably still help.

Walter has started announcing them here on D.announce, which is good,
but you're right, links on the main page and installers might also help.
May 30 2013
parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Nick Sabalausky, el 30 de May a las 22:47 me escribiste:

 On Fri, 31 May 2013 03:50:51 +0200
 "Rob T" <alanb ucora.com> wrote:

 Yes, but because there's no link on the main page and no 
 installer, the RC's are effectively closed to the public because 
 only people in the know will go through the trouble to get the 
 RC's and install them.
 
 I'm only talking about when the next release gets very to release 
 should something like this be done. It'll make installing a new 
 release far less risky business when it goes final. It'll improve 
 confidence in the final product and further reduce or completely 
 eliminate nasty surprises.
 
 IMO doing this will have a similar positive effect like as we've 
 seen with the improved release log.
 
 --rt


 
 Yea, greater visibility for the betas could probably still help.


Yeah, and that's exactly what I suggested here several times, and
ultimately at DConf :). A step forward has been made in this release,
as you said, betas were announced in this NG for the first time, before
they were announced only in the beta ML.

Now we need to put version numbers to different betas, put a link to
them in the main page (with the complete changelog, so people also know
what's new and try the new stuff) and wait a little longer before
releasing the final version. Also, to avoid a lot of release burden,
I don't think there is a need to fix a regression and instantly
pseudo-release a new beta, ending with 6 or 7 betas. Is better to wait
a little longer between releases and get more fixes in each release
(unless there is a very bad regression that makes the compiler almost
unusable). Maybe having something like a fixed weekly release of betas
would be a good idea. If one week there are no more bug reports against
the beta, then release that as the final version.

Betas are really release candidates, I think it might be a good idea to
just start calling them what they are, so people is more tempted to
download them and try them.

I hope next time it is DMD 2.064rc1, 2.064rc2, etc...

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fantasy is as important as wisdom
May 31 2013
parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Friday, May 31, 2013 10:17:07 Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 Yeah, and that's exactly what I suggested here several times, and
 ultimately at DConf :). A step forward has been made in this release,
 as you said, betas were announced in this NG for the first time, before
 they were announced only in the beta ML.


http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10153
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10154

- Jonathan M Davis
May 31 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <m.strashun gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:41:08 UTC, Rob T wrote:=

 Prior to issuing a release like this, it should instead be made 
 public as a "stable release candidate" with full installer on 
 the downloads page for review by anyone. After the bugs are 
 worked out and some time has elapsed, the stable RC is simply 
 declared "stable final" and re-released as such with the usual 
 big announcement.

 --rt


I disagree. Anything made public is treated as a release. It does 
not matter how to you call it. And new release scheme with minor 
version numbers has been adopted recently, so there are no issues 
in fixing those regression and updating release with v2.063.2 tag 
now - essentially will do the same stuff.
May 31 2013
parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Dicebot, el 31 de May a las 10:01 me escribiste:

 On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:41:08 UTC, Rob T wrote:=

Prior to issuing a release like this, it should instead be made
public as a "stable release candidate" with full installer on the
downloads page for review by anyone. After the bugs are worked out
and some time has elapsed, the stable RC is simply declared
"stable final" and re-released as such with the usual big
announcement.

--rt


 
 I disagree. Anything made public is treated as a release.


This is just plain and completely wrong. I don't know many big-ish
opensource projects that doesn't have release candidates, and I haven't
see any "distribution" targeted at end users using release candidates.

Have you ever see a Linux distribution shipping an rc kernel (that is
not only installable by explicit user action) for example?

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUGAR COMPULSIVAMENTE ES PERJUDICIAL PARA LA SALUD.
	-- Casino de Mar del Plata
May 31 2013
parent reply "Dicebot" <m.strashun gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 09:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 This is just plain and completely wrong. I don't know many 
 big-ish
 opensource projects that doesn't have release candidates, and I 
 haven't
 see any "distribution" targeted at end users using release 
 candidates.

 Have you ever see a Linux distribution shipping an rc kernel 
 (that is
 not only installable by explicit user action) for example?


Oh, I have meant it completely other way around - if some release 
is made available through common channels it does not matter if 
it is called "beta" or "RC", people will just start using it. 
Remember the issue with UDA syntax?

In mature projects RC does not differ that much from actual 
release other than by extra regression fixes. But for D process 
is not THAT smooth enough and it will take some time to settle 
things down.
May 31 2013
parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Dicebot, el 31 de May a las 13:44 me escribiste:

 On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 09:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

This is just plain and completely wrong. I don't know many big-ish
opensource projects that doesn't have release candidates, and I
haven't
see any "distribution" targeted at end users using release
candidates.

Have you ever see a Linux distribution shipping an rc kernel (that
is
not only installable by explicit user action) for example?


 
 Oh, I have meant it completely other way around - if some release is
 made available through common channels it does not matter if it is
 called "beta" or "RC", people will just start using it. Remember the
 issue with UDA syntax?


The UDAs issue was completely different, there were no betas including
UDAs. People using it were just using a development snapshot.


 In mature projects RC does not differ that much from actual release
 other than by extra regression fixes. But for D process is not THAT
 smooth enough and it will take some time to settle things down.


This is pretty much how it is now. Only minor regressions can be found
in a beta/rc usually. There are no changes in behaviour or new features.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All fathers are intimidating. They're intimidating because they are
fathers.  Once a man has children, for the rest of his life, his
attitude is, "To hell with the world, I can make my own people. I'll eat
whatever I want. I'll wear whatever I want, and I'll create whoever
I want."
	-- Jerry Seinfeld
May 31 2013
parent reply "Dicebot" <m.strashun gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:08:18 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 In mature projects RC does not differ that much from actual 
 release
 other than by extra regression fixes. But for D process is not 
 THAT
 smooth enough and it will take some time to settle things down.


 This is pretty much how it is now. Only minor regressions can 
 be found
 in a beta/rc usually. There are no changes in behaviour or new 
 features.


Erm, I remember you taking good part in const initialization 
discussion with all semantics changes and compiler flags added 
until final decision was set in stone. That is something better 
done in semi-closed beta in my opinion.
May 31 2013
parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Dicebot, el 31 de May a las 16:18 me escribiste:

 On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:08:18 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

In mature projects RC does not differ that much from actual
release
other than by extra regression fixes. But for D process is not
THAT
smooth enough and it will take some time to settle things down.


This is pretty much how it is now. Only minor regressions can be
found in a beta/rc usually. There are no changes in behaviour or new
features.


 
 Erm, I remember you taking good part in const initialization
 discussion with all semantics changes and compiler flags added until
 final decision was set in stone. That is something better done in
 semi-closed beta in my opinion.


Well, that case could really be considered just a regression, something
that used to work one way was changed in the beta (but was wrong) and
during the beta process was restored (with a better
migration/deprecation plan). I still think is quite different from
introducing new features or behaviour changes *intentionally*.

You are never covered 100%. But anyway, I'm not against having a first
iteration with less exposure (i.e. targeted only to DMD devels), but
I don't think we even need a "release" for that. Is enough to say in the
MLs "hey, we are starting with the release process, everyone check the
current master and report any problems" and freeze new features merge
from there. One everything is slightly tested and at least the devels
agree the master is in good shape, we can start shipping proper public
release candidates, with the proper changelog, version number, etc.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Tata Dios lo creó a usté solamente pa despertar al pueblo y fecundar
  las gayinas.
- Otro constrasentido divino... Quieren que yo salga de joda con las
  hembras y después quieren que madrugue.
	-- Inodoro Pereyra y un gallo
May 31 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:04:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

 On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> 
 wrote:

 Hello,


 We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215

 But I can't recreate this in git-head. It must have been a 
 specific
 commit the release is based on that introduced this behavior. I 
 don't
 know how it went through the autotester unnoticed, this is a 
 pretty
 major bug.


Perfect chance to try out the new release process. Patch 2.063 
and release 2.063.1.
May 30 2013
next sibling parent "Dicebot" <m.strashun gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 00:28:58 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:

 Perfect chance to try out the new release process. Patch 2.063 
 and release 2.063.1.


Actually v2.063.1 is the current one, check the dmd tags ;)
It will be v2.063.2

P.S. It has made life of linux packagers SOOO much easier ^_^
May 31 2013
prev sibling parent "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> writes:
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 00:28:58 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:04:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

 On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Hello,


 We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215

 But I can't recreate this in git-head. It must have been a 
 specific
 commit the release is based on that introduced this behavior. 
 I don't
 know how it went through the autotester unnoticed, this is a 
 pretty
 major bug.


 Perfect chance to try out the new release process. Patch 2.063 
 and release 2.063.1.


That would be good. The problem is a bit annoying.
May 31 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-05-30 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Hello,


 We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference compiler of the
 D programming language, is now available for download for OSX, Windows,
 and a variety of Unixen:

 http://dlang.org/download.html


The -transition=field flag seems to be undocumented.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
May 31 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <m.strashun gmail.com> writes:
I want to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who has been 
involved in doing this release. It is a major breakthrough in D 
development and release process and a solid step towards truly 
mature project.

Really, a lot of small but important changes have just happened 
that make this release extra awesome:

1) It was a great pleasure to see real project authors coming to 
beta list and calling problems found by their code out loud 
before release is made. It is how it was intended to work and it 
finally works.

2) Judging by tags in D repos, new release versioning scheme is 
making its way into being adopted and used. That means that those 
few regression not caught by beta can be fixed now and release as 
2.063.2, no need to wait for 2.064 and suffer. Awesome.

3) Final decision about major breaking bug fix is surprisingly 
wise and close to well-define transition process I have been 
asking for so long. (If you have missed it, it looks like this: 
"release n: warning, release n+1: deprecation, release n+2: new 
behavior") Resolution if this problem alone is a major step 
towards proud title of stable and mature project and I hope it 
won't be a rare exception ;)

4) Changelog. It rocks. It fulfills my deeply hidden desires. 
Andrej, you have done an astonishing job here.

Yay!
May 31 2013
parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Dicebot, el 31 de May a las 10:11 me escribiste:

 I want to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who has been
 involved in doing this release. It is a major breakthrough in D
 development and release process and a solid step towards truly
 mature project.
 
 Really, a lot of small but important changes have just happened that
 make this release extra awesome:
 
 1) It was a great pleasure to see real project authors coming to
 beta list and calling problems found by their code out loud before
 release is made. It is how it was intended to work and it finally
 works.
 
 2) Judging by tags in D repos, new release versioning scheme is
 making its way into being adopted and used. That means that those
 few regression not caught by beta can be fixed now and release as
 2.063.2, no need to wait for 2.064 and suffer. Awesome.


About this, AFAIK 2.063.1 is really what's in the release, but the
binary version number (and the zip name) have only 2.063. I think that
should be fixed and the real version number should be present in both
downloadables and binary. Also a micro changelog should be provided,
only with the regressions that were fixed.

And I don't mean to minimize the incredible breakthrough concerning the
release process in this cycle, just pointing out places were we can
still do better :)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your success is measured by your ability to finish things
May 31 2013
next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <m.strashun gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 And I don't mean to minimize the incredible breakthrough 
 concerning the
 release process in this cycle, just pointing out places were we 
 can
 still do better :)


Btw, I have included minor version number into Arch Linux package 
version, may suggest other packagers to do the same. Version 
string shown by DMD front-end itself is not that important as 
spec shouldn't change within minor versions. Still may be useful 
though.
May 31 2013
parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Dicebot, el 31 de May a las 16:21 me escribiste:

 On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

And I don't mean to minimize the incredible breakthrough
concerning the
release process in this cycle, just pointing out places were we
can
still do better :)


 
 Btw, I have included minor version number into Arch Linux package
 version, may suggest other packagers to do the same. Version string
 shown by DMD front-end itself is not that important as spec
 shouldn't change within minor versions. Still may be useful though.


For users it is. I want to know if the compiler I'm used is the latest
with all critical bugfixes included or not. Remember that if we are
going massive, we can't count anymore on user installing their compilers
themselves anymore. People will start just doing an apt-get install dmd,
or even have it preinstalled, and it should be easy for them to know
exactly what release they are using.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Y serán tiempos de vanos encuentros entre humano y humano; en que las
fieras se comerán entre ellas y después del final; en que se abríran las
tierras y los cielos... y en el medio de la nada Racing saldrá campeón.
	-- Ricardo Vaporeso
May 31 2013
prev sibling parent "Rob T" <alanb ucora.com> writes:
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 About this, AFAIK 2.063.1 is really what's in the release, but 
 the
 binary version number (and the zip name) have only 2.063. I 
 think that
 should be fixed and the real version number should be present 
 in both
 downloadables and binary. Also a micro changelog should be 
 provided,
 only with the regressions that were fixed.


Of course, that absolutely makes sense and should be implemented 
by next release if possible.


 And I don't mean to minimize the incredible breakthrough 
 concerning the
 release process in this cycle, just pointing out places were we 
 can
 still do better :)


Agreed. Looking back just a couple of releases ago, the situation 
has improved considerably, but as always there's a lot more 
improvements that can and should be done.

As for the comment that RC's will be treated as stable releases, 
that's hard to swallow, esp when you consider what's going on 
now. The current release is worse than a RC because it's not 
labeled for what it is, people will think it's stable when in 
fact it's not. I think that it is far more professional and 
responsible to explicitly state that the version on the download 
page is a release candidate rather than not saying anything at 
all. People will get the wrong impression and think that it is a 
well tested and honed stable release.

To reduce potential confusion, we can place RC's in a separate 
download page.

Finally the RC can be a reasonably well tested version that is 
near completion to minimize the amount of re-work and bug 
potential. Even if it is misused by people who should know 
better, it'll still perform reasonably well, and the rest of us 
tinkerers will greatly benefit from having it.

Finally, making RC's available to the public will greatly help 
increase the quality of the final product and increase the 
confidence in it for production use.

It'll be a win-win for everyone, no question in my mind.

--rt
May 31 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Mike James" <foo bar.com> writes:
Damn you D - I'm using up a large chunk of my free time reading the improved 
and very-readable Change Log.

A great update to D and Log.

-=mike=-
May 31 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "estew" <estewh gmail.com> writes:
Great work all  :-)

Many thanks to everyone involved, it really is appreciated.

Stewart
May 31 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
On 05/30/2013 08:16 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Hello,


 We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference compiler of the
 D programming language, is now available for download for OSX, Windows,
 and a variety of Unixen:


The rpm package doesn't make the appropriate links in /usr/lib, so when 
I try to build a shared library, at runtime it issues

./test1d: error while loading shared libraries: libphobos2.so.0.63: 
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

I would assume the deb package has the same shortcoming
May 31 2013
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 12:19 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

 I would assume the deb package has the same shortcoming


I have not seen this with the deb on Debian Unstable.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
May 31 2013
parent reply Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
On 05/31/2013 12:32 PM, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 12:19 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 […]

 I would assume the deb package has the same shortcoming


 I have not seen this with the deb on Debian Unstable.


just tried it on ubuntu 12.10, and it does the same.

are you using -defaultlib=libphobos2.so

?
May 31 2013
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 13:50 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

 just tried it on ubuntu 12.10, and it does the same.
=20
 are you using -defaultlib=3Dlibphobos2.so


I suspect I may be doing different things from you as I never use an
option of that sort. Perhaps we should agree a code and command to make
the tests.

I definitely have everything though:

/usr/lib/libphobos-ldc-debug.a
/usr/lib/libphobos-ldc.a
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.a
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.a
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63

Though I note that the installer is getting it all wrong wrt symbolic
links:

-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3924435 May 30 04:55 /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphob=
os2.so
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4629987 May 30 04:55 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libph=
obos2.so

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 May 31 14:14 /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.s=
o.0.63 -> libphobos2.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 May 31 14:14 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2=
.so.0.63 -> libphobos2.so

The so link should point to the soname version link which points to the
fully qualified version which is the real file. The DMD deb gets this
all the wrong way around :-((

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jun 01 2013
parent reply Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
On 06/01/2013 02:31 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 13:50 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 […]

 just tried it on ubuntu 12.10, and it does the same.

 are you using -defaultlib=libphobos2.so


 I suspect I may be doing different things from you as I never use an
 option of that sort. Perhaps we should agree a code and command to make
 the tests.


the way I build is detailed in the makefile here:

https://bitbucket.org/ariovistus/pyd/src/296ef002750411331ec9a3bcb14aed345b65d8d5/examples/misc/dmd_sharedlibs?at=default
Jun 01 2013
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 09:36 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:

 On 06/01/2013 02:31 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 13:50 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]

 just tried it on ubuntu 12.10, and it does the same.

 are you using -defaultlib=3Dlibphobos2.so


 I suspect I may be doing different things from you as I never use an
 option of that sort. Perhaps we should agree a code and command to make
 the tests.


=20
 the way I build is detailed in the makefile here:
=20
 https://bitbucket.org/ariovistus/pyd/src/296ef002750411331ec9a3bcb14aed34=


5b65d8d5/examples/misc/dmd_sharedlibs?at=3Ddefault

I cloned PyD =E2=80=93 I have been intending to do this for ages to try D f=
or
Python extensions =E2=80=93 and ran make in the directory you mentioned:

        |> make
        gcc  -c -fPIC so_ctor.c -o so_ctor.o
        dmd  -unittest -fPIC -defaultlib=3Dlibphobos2.so -shared test1.d
        boilerplate.d so_ctor.o -oflibtest1.so
        #dmd  -c -unittest -fPIC test1.d boilerplate.d -oftemp.o
        #dmd  -shared -defaultlib=3Dphobos2so temp.o so_ctor.o
        -oflibtest1.so
        gcc  test1.c `pwd`/libtest1.so -o test1.x
        ./test1.x
        initing
        yawn. stretch.
        lets test this donut.
        foo(2)=3D6
        dniting
        yawn. zzzzz


--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jun 01 2013
parent reply Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
On 06/01/2013 11:19 PM, Russel Winder wrote:

 I cloned PyD – I have been intending to do this for ages to try D for
 Python extensions – and ran make in the directory you mentioned:

          |> make
          gcc  -c -fPIC so_ctor.c -o so_ctor.o
          dmd  -unittest -fPIC -defaultlib=libphobos2.so -shared test1.d
          boilerplate.d so_ctor.o -oflibtest1.so
          #dmd  -c -unittest -fPIC test1.d boilerplate.d -oftemp.o
          #dmd  -shared -defaultlib=phobos2so temp.o so_ctor.o
          -oflibtest1.so
          gcc  test1.c `pwd`/libtest1.so -o test1.x
          ./test1.x
          initing
          yawn. stretch.
          lets test this donut.
          foo(2)=6
          dniting
          yawn. zzzzz


who packages your dmd?
Jun 02 2013
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 11:23 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

=20
 who packages your dmd?


Normally I would use the one from APT-D, but as this not at 2.063 as yet
I used the deb downloaded from the D download page. This necessitates
removing all packages from APT-D since they depend on exactly a given
DMD version. I have this installed GtkD from master/HEAD and not got
Vibe.d just at the minute.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jun 02 2013
parent reply Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
On 06/02/2013 11:48 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 11:23 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 […]

 who packages your dmd?


 Normally I would use the one from APT-D, but as this not at 2.063 as yet
 I used the deb downloaded from the D download page. This necessitates
 removing all packages from APT-D since they depend on exactly a given
 DMD version. I have this installed GtkD from master/HEAD and not got
 Vibe.d just at the minute.


so we are using the same package.

??

oh. dpkg -L just doesn't list it.

but it's definitely missing from the rpm.
Jun 02 2013
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 12:48 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

 so we are using the same package.
=20
 ??
=20
 oh. dpkg -L just doesn't list it.


Symbolic links aren't in the deb, they are created by the post install
script once the shared library is installed.


 but it's definitely missing from the rpm.


Perhaps RPMs should have a post install script?

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jun 02 2013
parent Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
On 06/02/2013 12:56 PM, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 12:48 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 […]

 so we are using the same package.

 ??

 oh. dpkg -L just doesn't list it.


 Symbolic links aren't in the deb, they are created by the post install
 script once the shared library is installed.


 but it's definitely missing from the rpm.


 Perhaps RPMs should have a post install script?


you can package relative links in rpm.

https://bitbucket.org/ariovistus/rpm-buildscripts/src/21921c736116a51f60db4ab9cb5852fc0ae0b63c/dmd-git2rpm?at=default#cl-293
Jun 02 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 5/31/13, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:

 On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Hello,


 We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215


Kenji has reduced this, and apparently it's a problem with the actual
zipped release, not any commit. We really should provide an emergency
release as soon as possible, this is a rather serious bug.
Jun 01 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:
For some reason I still cannot build dmd 2.063 from the zip
release. I mentioned it before the release on the beta and
internals mailing lists and maybe I'm just overlooking
something trivial, but when I run make I get:

make: *** Keine Regel vorhanden, um das Target =C2=BBirstate.h=C2=AB,
  ben=C3=B6tigt von =C2=BBirstate.o=C2=AB, zu erstellen.  Schluss.

irstate.c is there, but irstate.h is missing. Is that like
last time when VERSION was missing?

Also when you release hotfixes, please give the packages
new names reflecting the full version. Package managers
run into problems when the same URL has changed content.
(e.g. aborting on failed checksum or not recognizing the
update)

--=20
Marco
Jun 01 2013
parent Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:
Am Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:40:27 +0200
schrieb Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de>:


 For some reason I still cannot build dmd 2.063 from the zip
 release. I mentioned it before the release on the beta and
 internals mailing lists and maybe I'm just overlooking
 something trivial, but when I run make I get:
=20
 make: *** Keine Regel vorhanden, um das Target =C2=BBirstate.h=C2=AB,
   ben=C3=B6tigt von =C2=BBirstate.o=C2=AB, zu erstellen.  Schluss.
=20
 irstate.c is there, but irstate.h is missing. Is that like
 last time when VERSION was missing?


Ok, a pull request about that got merged. Let's see if it ends
up in the .zip ;)


--=20
Marco
Jun 02 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Joakim" <joakim airpost.net> writes:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 15:16:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 Hello,


 We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference 
 compiler of the D programming language, is now available for 
 download for OSX, Windows, and a variety of Unixen:

 http://dlang.org/download.html


I just tried to compile dmd and it failed because the header file 
irstate.h was missing.  After retrieving it from git, the compile 
went through, so it's probably the only file missing.  I think 
the zip needs to be updated.
Jun 05 2013
parent reply Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:
Am Thu, 06 Jun 2013 01:53:35 +0200
schrieb "Joakim" <joakim airpost.net>:


 On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 15:16:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 Hello,


 We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference 
 compiler of the D programming language, is now available for 
 download for OSX, Windows, and a variety of Unixen:

 http://dlang.org/download.html


 I just tried to compile dmd and it failed because the header file 
 irstate.h was missing.  After retrieving it from git, the compile 
 went through, so it's probably the only file missing.  I think 
 the zip needs to be updated.


Yes please, this is holding me back from updating the Gentoo
package for dmd 2.063. (Unless I want to add that missing file
as a patch.)

-- 
Marco
Jun 06 2013
parent reply "Dicebot" <m.strashun gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 10:50:30 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:

 Yes please, this is holding me back from updating the Gentoo
 package for dmd 2.063. (Unless I want to add that missing file
 as a patch.)


Why not use git tag instead?
Jun 06 2013
parent reply Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:
Am Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:44:57 +0200
schrieb "Dicebot" <m.strashun gmail.com>:


 On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 10:50:30 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:

 Yes please, this is holding me back from updating the Gentoo
 package for dmd 2.063. (Unless I want to add that missing file
 as a patch.)


 
 Why not use git tag instead?


The license doesn't allow redistribution of dmd, probably in
order to have a download statistic. I don't want to circumvent
that by creating my own .zip file or using an auto-generated
archive. (Although I wouldn't mind getting rid of the
pre-built binaries. :) )

-- 
Marco
Jun 08 2013
parent "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 14:10:05 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:

 The license doesn't allow redistribution of dmd, probably in
 order to have a download statistic.


The reason for this is the unfortunate backend licensing 
situation. Download statistics have nothing to do with that.

David
Jun 08 2013