www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - sudo apt-get install dmd

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found this:

http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

Should we make it part of the official distribution?


Andrei
Mar 14 2015
next sibling parent reply "tcak" <tcak gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 17:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found 
 this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 Andrei


Ubuntu, most of the time, used with GUI. I just click on Download 
button of DMD, and Firefox opens it with Software Centre, and I 
click on Install button. Update works in the same way. So, in 
this case, there is no need for apt-get.

...BUT...

Especially for Raspberry PI, server OSs (e.g. CentOS), it is a 
good idea. But I do not thing, anyone would one to install it on 
a server unless they require libphobos to run an executable.
Mar 14 2015
next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 3/14/15 11:37 AM, tcak wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 17:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 Andrei


 Ubuntu, most of the time, used with GUI. I just click on Download button
 of DMD, and Firefox opens it with Software Centre, and I click on
 Install button. Update works in the same way. So, in this case, there is
 no need for apt-get.


Well among other things I'm thinking of getting it programmatically in 
tools/update.sh. -- Andrei
Mar 14 2015
prev sibling parent "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 18:37:18 UTC, tcak wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 17:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found 
 this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 Andrei


 Ubuntu, most of the time, used with GUI. I just click on 
 Download button of DMD, and Firefox opens it with Software 
 Centre, and I click on Install button. Update works in the same 
 way. So, in this case, there is no need for apt-get.

 ...BUT...

 Especially for Raspberry PI, server OSs (e.g. CentOS), it is a 
 good idea. But I do not thing, anyone would one to install it 
 on a server unless they require libphobos to run an executable.


apt-get will get you the updates automagically !
Mar 14 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 10:31 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found this:
=20
 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/
=20
 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


It is the way I put DMD and other things in the repository into Debian
Sid. These debs work nicely, the debs produced as part of the
distribution have to be downloaded and installed into a local repository
and it's all a mess: much easier having d-apt part of the release
process.

Should also look to get the RPMs into rpmfusion for Fedora 21, 22 and
Rawhide. similarly much easier than downloading RPMs into=20

--=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
Mar 14 2015
parent reply "weaselcat" <weaselcat gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 18:56:07 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 10:31 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via 
 Digitalmars-d
 wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found 
 this:
 
 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/
 
 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 It is the way I put DMD and other things in the repository into 
 Debian
 Sid. These debs work nicely, the debs produced as part of the
 distribution have to be downloaded and installed into a local 
 repository
 and it's all a mess: much easier having d-apt part of the 
 release
 process.

 Should also look to get the RPMs into rpmfusion for Fedora 21, 
 22 and
 Rawhide. similarly much easier than downloading RPMs into


I thought DMD wasn't included in free distros because of 
licensing issues?
I don't think any major distro comes without LDC or GDC.
Mar 14 2015
parent reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 19:34 +0000, weaselcat via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

 I thought DMD wasn't included in free distros because of=20
 licensing issues?


Well it's about time the licences changed then.


 I don't think any major distro comes without LDC or GDC.


Indeed. However these do not have the speed of compilation of DMD. So
for script use rdmd is essential, otherwise ldc2 and gdc are required as
dmd generated code is awfully slow.=20

--=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
Mar 15 2015
parent reply "weaselcat" <weaselcat gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 13:13:25 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 19:34 +0000, weaselcat via Digitalmars-d 
 wrote:
 […]

 I thought DMD wasn't included in free distros because of 
 licensing issues?


 Well it's about time the licences changed then.


It would be nice if Walter commented on this, because there's no 
way to get DMD into any distro until this happens. I understand 
if he doesn't want to relicense it, but it would be nice.

quoting from the license file,


The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,
and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a 
redistribution license,
please contact Digital Mars.
Mar 15 2015
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 3/15/15 10:49 AM, weaselcat wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 13:13:25 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 19:34 +0000, weaselcat via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 […]

 I thought DMD wasn't included in free distros because of licensing
 issues?


 Well it's about time the licences changed then.


 It would be nice if Walter commented on this, because there's no way to
 get DMD into any distro until this happens. I understand if he doesn't
 want to relicense it, but it would be nice.


We'd want to but are not able to change the license. -- Andrei
Mar 15 2015
parent reply "weaselcat" <weaselcat gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 17:51:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 On 3/15/15 10:49 AM, weaselcat wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 13:13:25 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 19:34 +0000, weaselcat via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 […]

 I thought DMD wasn't included in free distros because of 
 licensing
 issues?


 Well it's about time the licences changed then.


 It would be nice if Walter commented on this, because there's 
 no way to
 get DMD into any distro until this happens. I understand if he 
 doesn't
 want to relicense it, but it would be nice.


 We'd want to but are not able to change the license. -- Andrei


That's a shame.

Do you know if the backend license will remain with DDMD?
Mar 15 2015
parent reply "weaselcat" <weaselcat gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 17:52:45 UTC, weaselcat wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 17:51:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 On 3/15/15 10:49 AM, weaselcat wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 13:13:25 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 19:34 +0000, weaselcat via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 […]

 I thought DMD wasn't included in free distros because of 
 licensing
 issues?


 Well it's about time the licences changed then.


 It would be nice if Walter commented on this, because there's 
 no way to
 get DMD into any distro until this happens. I understand if 
 he doesn't
 want to relicense it, but it would be nice.


 We'd want to but are not able to change the license. -- Andrei


 That's a shame.

 Do you know if the backend license will remain with DDMD?


Actually, is DDMD just a frontend port? I feel sort of dumb now 
for not checking before asking that : )
Mar 15 2015
parent reply "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:
"weaselcat"  wrote in message news:ilvohiiubkvzrglmkolb forum.dlang.org...


 Do you know if the backend license will remain with DDMD?




Yes


 Actually, is DDMD just a frontend port? I feel sort of dumb now for not 
 checking before asking that : )


And yes, but even if the backend was being converted to D that wouldn't 
change the license.
Mar 16 2015
parent reply BoQsc <vaidas.boqsc gmail.com> writes:
Can someone explain, why we still do not have apt repository for 
D compiler?
Aug 09 2019
parent reply bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:08:41 UTC, BoQsc wrote:

 Can someone explain, why we still do not have apt repository 
 for D compiler?


Doesn't this do what you need?
https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/
Aug 09 2019
next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:11 +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:08:41 UTC, BoQsc wrote:

 Can someone explain, why we still do not have apt repository=20
 for D compiler?


=20
 Doesn't this do what you need?
 https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/


That certainly works for me. Though I use the ldc2 compiler which is in the
standard Debian archive.

--=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
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk
Aug 09 2019
parent reply bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:42:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:11 +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d 
 wrote:

 On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:08:41 UTC, BoQsc wrote:

 Can someone explain, why we still do not have apt repository 
 for D compiler?


 
 Doesn't this do what you need? https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/


 That certainly works for me. Though I use the ldc2 compiler 
 which is in the standard Debian archive.


And as a snap package, which I think is updated more quickly.
Aug 09 2019
parent reply jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:56:33 UTC, bachmeier wrote:

 On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:42:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:11 +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d 
 wrote:

 On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:08:41 UTC, BoQsc wrote:

 Can someone explain, why we still do not have apt 
 repository for D compiler?


 
 Doesn't this do what you need? https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/


 That certainly works for me. Though I use the ldc2 compiler 
 which is in the standard Debian archive.


 And as a snap package, which I think is updated more quickly.


How does that work? I don't use linux very often, but whenever I 
do I feel like apt gives me a really old version of ldc and just 
install it manually.
Aug 09 2019
next sibling parent bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 18:32:03 UTC, jmh530 wrote:

 On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:56:33 UTC, bachmeier wrote:

 On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:42:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:11 +0000, bachmeier via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:08:41 UTC, BoQsc wrote:

 Can someone explain, why we still do not have apt 
 repository for D compiler?


 
 Doesn't this do what you need? https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/


 That certainly works for me. Though I use the ldc2 compiler 
 which is in the standard Debian archive.


 And as a snap package, which I think is updated more quickly.


 How does that work? I don't use linux very often, but whenever 
 I do I feel like apt gives me a really old version of ldc and 
 just install it manually.


I believe the command is

sudo snap install ldc2 --classic

on Ubuntu. snap should be installed as part of the standard 
installation.
Aug 09 2019
prev sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 18:32 +0000, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d wrote:

=20


[=E2=80=A6]

 How does that work? I don't use linux very often, but whenever I=20
 do I feel like apt gives me a really old version of ldc and just=20
 install it manually.


It depends on which Linux distribution you use. Using apt implies an Debian=
 or
Ubuntu (or Mint?) distribution but aptitude is far better than apt for pack=
age
management.

ldc2 is currently 1.12.0 on Debian Sid.

How quickly the ldc package gets updated depends on the volunteers doing th=
e
work:
Debian D Language Group <team+d-team tracker.debian.org>

These volunteers need recognition and everyone's support.

--=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
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk
Aug 10 2019
prev sibling parent reply BoQsc <vaidas.boqsc gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:11:13 UTC, bachmeier wrote:

 On Friday, 9 August 2019 at 16:08:41 UTC, BoQsc wrote:

 Can someone explain, why we still do not have apt repository 
 for D compiler?


 Doesn't this do what you need?
 https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/


I'd prefer having D language compiler included into next releases 
of Linux distributions.
I'm worried that https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/ repository's 
package nor D language compiler's license is compatible to be 
included and even preinstalled in Distributions such as Ubuntu.




 That certainly works for me. Though I use the ldc2 compiler 
 which is in the standard Debian archive.



ldc compiler is a way different bundle, it does not contain RDMD 
nor DUB?
Aug 09 2019
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:58 +0000, BoQsc via Digitalmars-d wrote:

=20


[=E2=80=A6]

 I'd prefer having D language compiler included into next releases=20
 of Linux distributions.
 I'm worried that https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/ repository's=20
 package nor D language compiler's license is compatible to be=20
 included and even preinstalled in Distributions such as Ubuntu.


Clearly it would be better if dmd, dcd, dfmt, dfix, dscanner, dub etc. were
all in the standard Debian repository along with ldc, gdc, gtkd, gstreamerd=
,
tilix, etc.

Now that DMD licence has changed, it is almost certainly eligible to be in =
the
Debian repository. Then D-Apt could retire.

It is all down to someone volunteering to do the work. The people on the
Debian D Language Group <team+d-team tracker.debian.org> will have to do th=
e
final upload, but that doesn't stop others preparing the ground for them.

Without volunteers doing stuff, nothing in Debian changes.=20

[=E2=80=A6]

 ldc compiler is a way different bundle, it does not contain RDMD=20
 nor DUB?


True, but it is already in the Debian repository suitable for installation.

--=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
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk
Aug 10 2019
next sibling parent reply Andre Pany <andre s-e-a-p.de> writes:
On Saturday, 10 August 2019 at 08:32:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:58 +0000, BoQsc via Digitalmars-d 
 wrote:

 


 […]

 I'd prefer having D language compiler included into next 
 releases
 of Linux distributions.
 I'm worried that https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/ repository's
 package nor D language compiler's license is compatible to be
 included and even preinstalled in Distributions such as Ubuntu.


 Clearly it would be better if dmd, dcd, dfmt, dfix, dscanner, 
 dub etc. were all in the standard Debian repository along with 
 ldc, gdc, gtkd, gstreamerd, tilix, etc.

 Now that DMD licence has changed, it is almost certainly 
 eligible to be in the Debian repository. Then D-Apt could 
 retire.

 It is all down to someone volunteering to do the work. The 
 people on the Debian D Language Group 
 <team+d-team tracker.debian.org> will have to do the final 
 upload, but that doesn't stop others preparing the ground for 
 them.

 Without volunteers doing stuff, nothing in Debian changes.

 […]

 ldc compiler is a way different bundle, it does not contain 
 RDMD nor DUB?


 True, but it is already in the Debian repository suitable for 
 installation.


With a recent addition to Dub you can just call "dub -run 
dscanner" and it will be retrieved/compiled/started.
Of course adding a command "dub install" which makes the 
applications available in PATH would be the deluxe solution.

What I want to say, I see no benefit to add dub packages like 
dscanner, dfmt, ... to OS package repositories if they can be 
easily installed with dub.

Kind regards
Andre
Aug 10 2019
next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 09:32 +0000, Andre Pany via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

=20
 With a recent addition to Dub you can just call "dub -run=20
 dscanner" and it will be retrieved/compiled/started.
 Of course adding a command "dub install" which makes the=20
 applications available in PATH would be the deluxe solution.
=20
 What I want to say, I see no benefit to add dub packages like=20
 dscanner, dfmt, ... to OS package repositories if they can be=20
 easily installed with dub.


Nothing wrong with choosing not to OS packages for these things, but not
having the choice is a problem. Manual installation mean manual updating,
package-based installation means automated updating. Also package-based
installation guarantees the tools will work with the other packages for the
OS, manual installation does not make this promise.

--=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
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk
Aug 10 2019
prev sibling parent Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Saturday, 10 August 2019 at 09:32:02 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:

 On Saturday, 10 August 2019 at 08:32:05 UTC, Russel Winder 
 wrote:

 [...]


 With a recent addition to Dub you can just call "dub -run 
 dscanner" and it will be retrieved/compiled/started.
 Of course adding a command "dub install" which makes the 
 applications available in PATH would be the deluxe solution.



For future readers: it's just "dub run dscanner".
Aug 10 2019
prev sibling parent dangbinghoo <dangbinghoo gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 10 August 2019 at 08:32:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:58 +0000, BoQsc via Digitalmars-d 
 wrote:

 


 […]

 I'd prefer having D language compiler included into next 
 releases
 of Linux distributions.
 I'm worried that https://d-apt.sourceforge.io/ repository's
 package nor D language compiler's license is compatible to be
 included and even preinstalled in Distributions such as Ubuntu.


 Clearly it would be better if dmd, dcd, dfmt, dfix, dscanner, 
 dub etc. were all in the standard Debian repository along with 
 ldc, gdc, gtkd, gstreamerd, tilix, etc.


Archlinux has done this, and is always keeping updated(except 
gdc), :)

```
$ pacman -Ss dlang
community/dcd 1:0.12.0-1 (dlang) [installed: 1:0.11.1-1]
     D Completion Daemon: auto-complete for the D programming 
language
community/dfmt 0.10.1-1 (dlang) [installed]
     Dfmt is a formatter for D source code
community/dmd 1:2.087.1-1 (dlang dlang-dmd) [installed: 
1:2.087.0-1]
     The D programming language reference compiler
community/dmd-docs 1:2.087.1-1 (dlang dlang-dmd) [installed: 
1:2.087.0-1]
     Documentation and sample code for D programming language
community/dscanner 0.8.0-1 (dlang) [installed: 0.7.2-1]
     Swiss-army knife for D source code
community/dtools 2.087.1-1 (dlang) [installed: 2.087.0-1]
     Ancilliary tools for the D programming language
community/dub 1.16.0-1 (dlang) [installed]
     Developer package manager for D programming language
community/gdc 8.2.1+2.068.2-2 (dlang)
     Compiler for D programming language which uses gcc backend
community/ldc 2:1.16.0-2 (dlang dlang-ldc) [installed]
     A D Compiler based on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure 
including D runtime and libphobos2
community/libgphobos 8.2.1+2.068.2-2 (dlang)
     Standard library for D programming language, GDC port
community/liblphobos 2:1.16.0-2 (dlang dlang-ldc) [installed]
     A D Compiler based on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure 
including D runtime and libphobos2
community/libphobos 1:2.087.1-1 (dlang dlang-dmd) [installed: 
1:2.087.0-1]
     The Phobos standard library for D programming language

```
Aug 13 2019
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 17:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found 
 this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 Andrei


You can't "distribute" repository. It could be good to move it to 
"dlang.org" domain though and suggest using it in "downloads" 
section instead of plain .deb package.
Mar 14 2015
next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 3/14/15 11:05 PM, Dicebot wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 17:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 Andrei


 You can't "distribute" repository. It could be good to move it to
 "dlang.org" domain though and suggest using it in "downloads" section
 instead of plain .deb package.


Oh, yah, didn't mean "distribution". I meant make everything part of the 
site and official packaging process. -- Andrei
Mar 14 2015
prev sibling parent Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 06:05 +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

=20
 You can't "distribute" repository. It could be good to move it to=20
 "dlang.org" domain though and suggest using it in "downloads"=20
 section instead of plain .deb package.


It would be a good first step to move d-apt from the current URL to
apt.dlang.org.

Should also set up rpms.dlang.org for Fedora packages pending getting
properly set up in rpmfusion.

--=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
Mar 15 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On 14/03/15 18:31, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


It would be nice to have an official apt repo.  I find the way things are 
packaged there slightly unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it packages various 
different tools into the dmd-bin package (e.g. both dmd and rdmd) rather than 
allowing you to install/uninstall them separately.

Alternatively, might be worth setting up a dlang PPA on Launchpad (I think it 
probably makes things easier setting up packages for multiple different Ubuntu 
and Debian installs).
Mar 15 2015
next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 3/15/15 5:25 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On 14/03/15 18:31, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 It would be nice to have an official apt repo.  I find the way things
 are packaged there slightly unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it packages
 various different tools into the dmd-bin package (e.g. both dmd and
 rdmd) rather than allowing you to install/uninstall them separately.

 Alternatively, might be worth setting up a dlang PPA on Launchpad (I
 think it probably makes things easier setting up packages for multiple
 different Ubuntu and Debian installs).


Do we have one or more experts in all of the above with time at their 
disposal? -- Andrei
Mar 15 2015
prev sibling parent reply "Leandro Lucarella" <leandro.lucarella sociomantic.com> writes:
On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 12:25:35 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 
wrote:

 On 14/03/15 18:31, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found 
 this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 It would be nice to have an official apt repo.  I find the way 
 things are packaged there slightly unsatisfactory, inasmuch as 
 it packages various different tools into the dmd-bin package 
 (e.g. both dmd and rdmd) rather than allowing you to 
 install/uninstall them separately.

 Alternatively, might be worth setting up a dlang PPA on 
 Launchpad (I think it probably makes things easier setting up 
 packages for multiple different Ubuntu and Debian installs).


I'm not sure Ubuntu allows hosting non-FLOSS in their PPAs.
Mar 16 2015
next sibling parent "weaselcat" <weaselcat gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 16 March 2015 at 11:01:47 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 12:25:35 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
 Wakeling wrote:

 On 14/03/15 18:31, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and 
 found this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 It would be nice to have an official apt repo.  I find the way 
 things are packaged there slightly unsatisfactory, inasmuch as 
 it packages various different tools into the dmd-bin package 
 (e.g. both dmd and rdmd) rather than allowing you to 
 install/uninstall them separately.

 Alternatively, might be worth setting up a dlang PPA on 
 Launchpad (I think it probably makes things easier setting up 
 packages for multiple different Ubuntu and Debian installs).


 I'm not sure Ubuntu allows hosting non-FLOSS in their PPAs.



They do, but DMD's license specifically prohibits redistribution.
I think the best way to solve this is to work on LDC/GDC's 
compilation speed, I guess.
Mar 16 2015
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2015-03-16 12:01, Leandro Lucarella wrote:


 I'm not sure Ubuntu allows hosting non-FLOSS in their PPAs.


How are proprietary drivers installed, from other sources?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Mar 17 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 13:25 +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

=20
 Alternatively, might be worth setting up a dlang PPA on Launchpad (I thin=


k it=20

 probably makes things easier setting up packages for multiple different U=


buntu=20

 and Debian installs).


Experience tells us that Launchpad PPAs are fine for Ubuntu and no use
for Debian.

--=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
Mar 15 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On 15/03/15 14:11, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Experience tells us that Launchpad PPAs are fine for Ubuntu and no use
 for Debian.


Ack, that's a shame.  I have no direct experience from the Debian side, but I'd 
thought the PPAs did allow for creating package builds for Debian releases. :-(
Mar 15 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On 15 Mar 2015 13:45, "Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On 15/03/15 14:11, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Experience tells us that Launchpad PPAs are fine for Ubuntu and no use
 for Debian.



 Ack, that's a shame.  I have no direct experience from the Debian side,


but I'd thought the PPAs did allow for creating package builds for Debian
releases. :-(


I briefly looked at http://openbuildservice.org as an alternative IIRC.
But didn't have the immediate patience to wait in a very long build queue.



 Mar 15 2015



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Martin Nowak" <code dawg.eu>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 17:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found 
 this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


We could try to host an apt and yum repo on dlang.org.
Might be simple to do, but it's not much better than the deb/rpm 
download we offer.
It only gets interesting when we could land DMD in official 
repos, volunteering package maintainers are welcome and should 
please contact me.
I hope we can sort out the redistribution part of the backend 
somehow.

We should include the few commands to install the packages on the 
download page.



 Mar 16 2015



  parent reply Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>  writes:


On 16 March 2015 at 12:36, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 17:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 We could try to host an apt and yum repo on dlang.org.
 Might be simple to do, but it's not much better than the deb/rpm download we
 offer.


With a repo, at least you can let the package manager take care of
upgrades (or non-upgrades if you want to pin a specific version).

We could use dlang.org/rpm and dlang.org/debian maybe?

Iain



 Mar 16 2015



  parent  Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  writes:


On 3/16/15 5:47 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On 16 March 2015 at 12:36, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d
 <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 17:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 We could try to host an apt and yum repo on dlang.org.
 Might be simple to do, but it's not much better than the deb/rpm download we
 offer.


 With a repo, at least you can let the package manager take care of
 upgrades (or non-upgrades if you want to pin a specific version).


Yah, that would be better than just the downloads.


 We could use dlang.org/rpm and dlang.org/debian maybe?


Would be awesome. Who can work on this?


Andrei



 Mar 16 2015



prev sibling  parent reply aberba <karabutaworld gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 17:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 I was looking at easy installation of dmd on ubuntu, and found 
 this:

 http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/

 Should we make it part of the official distribution?


 Andrei



The future of Linux app distribution is either Flatpak 
(https://flatpak.org/) or Snap (https://snapcraft.io/). Among 
which Flatpak is technically more powerful/promising.

I'm sure there'll be more on this during the upcoming Linux App 
Summit (https://linuxappsummit.org/)



 Aug 10 2019



 next sibling parent  Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On Saturday, 10 August 2019 at 21:02:44 UTC, aberba wrote:

 The future of Linux app distribution is either Flatpak 
 (https://flatpak.org/) or Snap (https://snapcraft.io/). Among 
 which Flatpak is technically more powerful/promising.


The last time I looked, Flatpak was still much more tied to 
desktop usage, whereas snap has since its first iterations given 
first class support for device and server use-cases. So for a 
compiler, I think snap may be a superior option.

For example, I currently use the snap packages to install D 
compilers in CI. I'm not aware of anyone doing anything 
comparable with Flatpak. In fact if you look at developer tools 
on Flathub they appear to all be desktop apps — not a single 
compiler among them:
https://flathub.org/apps/category/Development

By the way, it doesn't have to be either-or. The two package 
ecosystems can co-exist on the same machine. But I'm not aware of 
_any_ flatpaks for compilers, whereas there are multiple snap 
packages providing compilers for multiple different languages.



 Aug 11 2019



prev sibling  parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk>  writes:


On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 21:02 +0000, aberba via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

 The future of Linux app distribution is either Flatpak=20
 (https://flatpak.org/) or Snap (https://snapcraft.io/). Among=20
 which Flatpak is technically more powerful/promising.


[=E2=80=A6]

So instead of a Deb vs. RPM war we now have a Snap vs. Flatpak was. As ever
this remains a RedHat vs. Canonical war.

Is it clear that either Snap or Flatpak are as efficient as native packages=
 in
terms of space requirements, download time, install time.

Currently, I use Linuxbrew for the very few packages I cannot get from the
Debian repository. I'd like to avoid Snap or Flatpak if at all possible.

Does AppImage have a role? Or one of the other tens of "solutions" to the "=
we
have to have a single packaging system for all Linux distributions" "proble=
m".


--=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
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk



 Aug 11 2019



  parent reply Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On Sunday, 11 August 2019 at 11:40:18 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 Is it clear that either Snap or Flatpak are as efficient as 
 native packages in terms of space requirements, download time, 
 install time.


As a point of comparison, the ldc2 snap package is about 70 MB on 
disk.  The deb packages covering equivalent functionality would 
be:

   * ldc (14.2 MB)
   * libllvm5.0 (13.7 MB)
   * libphobos2-ldc-shared78 (8 MB)
   * libphobos2-ldc-shared-dev (56.7 MB)

... so if anything the snap package takes up slightly less space 
(with a difference being that of course the LLVM components it 
incorporates are for its own use only, not a shared library 
usable by the rest of the system).

Probably the major differentiator here is that snap packages use 
squashfs for storage, so the "true" size of the package is larger 
than the actual disk usage.  I think uncompressed the snap 
package would be about 290 MB, most of which is the compiler 
itself (66 MB) plus libraries (52 MB for 32-bit, 145 MB for 
64-bit).

Bear in mind that the snap package includes both 32- and 64-bit 
libs, in versions with and without debug symbols, whereas the deb 
packages only include 64-bit.  The snap package also includes LTO 
support (which accounts for about 45 MB of the total uncompressed 
lib size).

Bottom line, the snap package gives you a greater amount of 
functionality while using a smaller amount of actual disk space 
(thanks to squashfs).  And if we looked carefully at what is 
being included, it might be possible to reduce the size further.



 Aug 11 2019



  parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk>  writes:


On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 12:41 +0000, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-=
d
wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

Hi,

Thanks for the email, very interesting, and lowers the bar for me to use
snaps.

Whilst the Debian package is 1.12.0, and the snap is 1.14.0, both are fairl=
y
old. I guess the Debian freeze stopped upgrade in Debian Sid, and I guess i=
t
requiring volunteers is stopping both the Debian package and the snap being
updated.

The Linuxbrew formula is 1.16.0 but it requires rebuild of some very big
packages that are not bottled.

I will continue to prioritise Debian packages, but I have now added snaps t=
o
Linuxbrew for specific packages that Debian doesn't provide to the required
level. As to whether to snap or brew, I am not yet sure what to get from
which.

--=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
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk



 Aug 12 2019



  parent  Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On Monday, 12 August 2019 at 11:53:14 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 Whilst the Debian package is 1.12.0, and the snap is 1.14.0, 
 both are fairly old. I guess the Debian freeze stopped upgrade 
 in Debian Sid, and I guess it requiring volunteers is stopping 
 both the Debian package and the snap being updated.


I'm the maintainer of the snap package, and I'm afraid the 
outdatedness is entirely my fault (the day job is very busy right 
now, and I've got behind).  But you can already install 1.16.0 by 
using the 'edge' channel (for the latest packages):

     sudo snap install --classic --edge ldc2

The main reason for lack of progress here is not creating a 
package for the new version, but making sure it gets at least 
minimal tests across the range of different install targets.

In any case I'm happy to hear that the snaps might be useful for 
you.  I'll try to put some time this weekend to testing to make 
sure I can get the 1.16.0 release out soon (and 1.17.0 as soon as 
that is released).

There are also snap packages for dmd and dub (which I also 
maintain), and a number of other tools (including dscanner, dfmt, 
and drepl) which are maintained by Ernesto Castellotti.



 Aug 12 2019