digitalmars.D - LDC blacklisted in Ubuntu
- Joseph Rushton Wakeling (6/6) Sep 20 2012 Some rather urgent news: LDC has just been blacklisted in Ubuntu.
- David Nadlinger (19/25) Sep 20 2012 It is not really news, as the LDC version in the Debian repo has
- Jonas Drewsen (7/13) Sep 20 2012 I've done some debs before and might be able to find some time to
- David Nadlinger (15/19) Sep 20 2012 This would be great!
- Walter Bright (3/13) Sep 23 2012 Perhaps the deb building script written by Jordi for dmd can be helpful ...
- David Nadlinger (7/9) Sep 20 2012 I didn't mean "packages" of course, but "packaging". Knowing how
- Joseph Rushton Wakeling (12/28) Sep 21 2012 It's not news that the package is out of date, but it _is_ news that the...
- David Nadlinger (17/25) Sep 26 2012 I don't doubt that distro packages are vital for providing a
- Iain Buclaw (17/38) Sep 26 2012 o.
- H. S. Teoh (8/23) Sep 26 2012 [...]
- Brad Roberts (23/62) Sep 26 2012 I have on my personal todo list a few major items (among many others):
- David Nadlinger (5/13) Sep 27 2012 At this point, wouldn't it be easier to use an existing solution
- H. S. Teoh (25/30) Sep 26 2012 [...]
- Brad Roberts (12/46) Sep 26 2012 That works well for packages which are single source tree. The current
- David Nadlinger (5/14) Sep 27 2012 Yep, for LDC "cmake . && make install" should be enough to build
- Iain Buclaw (10/56) Sep 27 2012 For #4, yes. Ubuntu is a better platform to approach for externally
- Jacob Carlborg (6/11) Sep 27 2012 Sorry for hijacking this thread a bit but it would be nice with
- Brad Roberts (9/22) Sep 27 2012 On reflection, #4 is not going to work for dmd.. neither ubuntu nor debi...
- Joseph Rushton Wakeling (3/5) Sep 27 2012 Would Debian have a problem with a dmd package in non-free? Would Ubunt...
- Jacob Carlborg (4/6) Sep 27 2012 Doesn't at least Ubuntu proprietary software, like drivers?
- Joseph Rushton Wakeling (5/9) Sep 27 2012 I'd love to, but it would be irresponsible to commit to it as (right now...
- Iain Buclaw (10/24) Sep 27 2012 nk
- Joseph Rushton Wakeling (5/9) Sep 27 2012 I wasn't even trying to build LDC at the time, just going through some "...
- Iain Buclaw (11/24) Sep 27 2012 I meant clang. :-)
- David Nadlinger (6/7) Sep 27 2012 Clang is an entirely different story, because it is built as part
- Joseph Rushton Wakeling (2/7) Sep 27 2012 On a related note ... can we expect to see an updated GDC package in Qua...
- H. S. Teoh (9/15) Sep 27 2012 [...]
- H. S. Teoh (11/59) Sep 27 2012 [...]
- H. S. Teoh (15/28) Sep 27 2012 [...]
- Sean Kelly (12/31) Sep 27 2012 mis-interpreting
- Russel Winder (17/26) Sep 27 2012 Use of /etc/apt/sources.list.d turns out to be anathema to those of use
- Russel Winder (17/22) Sep 27 2012 It is certainly a considerable proposition. However I think getting an
- Joseph Rushton Wakeling (5/7) Sep 27 2012 There certainly used to be, but IIRC it has fallen into disuse.
- Joseph Rushton Wakeling (12/14) Oct 02 2012 Just to follow up here -- a couple of days ago I pulled LDC from GitHub ...
- David Nadlinger (10/13) Oct 02 2012 Is any of the code public, in the sense that you could give e.g.
- Joseph Rushton Wakeling (5/11) Oct 02 2012 Here you go. :-)
- Russel Winder (23/30) Sep 22 2012 e=20
- Joseph Rushton Wakeling (9/12) Sep 23 2012 In the bigger picture yes, but as in this case it's Ubuntu that's blackl...
Some rather urgent news: LDC has just been blacklisted in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ldc/+bug/941549 This seems to be entirely down to no one keeping the Debian universe up to date with the latest LDC work. :-( Could someone on the LDC team get in touch with Ubuntu and see what can be done about this?
Sep 20 2012
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 17:26:25 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:Some rather urgent news: LDC has just been blacklisted in Ubuntu.It is not really news, as the LDC version in the Debian repo has not been updated for ages. But yes, it would definitely be important to have an LDC package in as many distribution repos as possible.This seems to be entirely down to no one keeping the Debian universe up to date with the latest LDC work. :-( Could someone on the LDC team get in touch with Ubuntu and see what can be done about this?As far as I see, we would at the very least need somebody to maintain the Debian/Ubuntu packages for this. Unfortunately, nobody on the core dev team uses Ubuntu for their daily work, or has other experiences with Debian packages. It would be great if somebody from the D community experienced in packaging could jump in to help us on this front. We'd be happy to help with any questions, and I don't think the packaging process should be particularly difficult (LDC builds fine on Ubuntu, and Arch and Fedora are already shipping recent versions). The thing is just that creating good packages for a system you are not intimately familiar with is quite hard, and we are already chronically lacking manpower anyway. David
Sep 20 2012
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 18:03:18 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 17:26:25 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:I've done some debs before and might be able to find some time to do it depending on how complex the package is. I haven't tried LDC before though. Can you provide some info on how to get started with the LDC building/packaging? /JonasSome rather urgent news: LDC has just been blacklisted in Ubuntu.It would be great if somebody from the D community experienced in packaging could jump in to help us on this front.
Sep 20 2012
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 20:07:56 UTC, Jonas Drewsen wrote:I've done some debs before and might be able to find some time to do it depending on how complex the package is. I haven't tried LDC before though. Can you provide some info on how to get started with the LDC building/packaging?This would be great! The build process really shouldn't be more complicated than fetching sources and submodules from https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc, running CMake and then "make install". See the README for a short description and a link to a longer one. Packaging shouldn't really be any more difficult than that either, as we are using a pretty standard build system and have no exotic dependencies. Here are the Fedora and Arch package sources, maybe they are helpful: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ldc https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/ldc David
Sep 20 2012
On 9/20/2012 1:08 PM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 18:03:18 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:Perhaps the deb building script written by Jordi for dmd can be helpful as a guide? https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installerOn Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 17:26:25 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:I've done some debs before and might be able to find some time to do it depending on how complex the package is. I haven't tried LDC before though. Can you provide some info on how to get started with the LDC building/packaging?Some rather urgent news: LDC has just been blacklisted in Ubuntu.It would be great if somebody from the D community experienced in packaging could jump in to help us on this front.
Sep 23 2012
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 18:03:18 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:Unfortunately, nobody on the core dev team uses Ubuntu for their daily work, or has other experiences with Debian packages.I didn't mean "packages" of course, but "packaging". Knowing how to use dpkg or build the occasional .deb is one thing, but knowing the Debian conventions enough to get a new package accepted is an entirely different one. David
Sep 20 2012
On 20/09/12 19:04, David Nadlinger wrote:On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 17:26:25 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:It's not news that the package is out of date, but it _is_ news that the package has been blacklisted, and very unwelcome news, because it could make it much more difficult to get an updated package included.Some rather urgent news: LDC has just been blacklisted in Ubuntu.It is not really news, as the LDC version in the Debian repo has not been updated for ages.But yes, it would definitely be important to have an LDC package in as many distribution repos as possible.I'd add here that you're talking about by far the most widely used distro.As far as I see, we would at the very least need somebody to maintain the Debian/Ubuntu packages for this. Unfortunately, nobody on the core dev team uses Ubuntu for their daily work, or has other experiences with Debian packages. It would be great if somebody from the D community experienced in packaging could jump in to help us on this front. We'd be happy to help with any questions, and I don't think the packaging process should be particularly difficult (LDC builds fine on Ubuntu, and Arch and Fedora are already shipping recent versions). The thing is just that creating good packages for a system you are not intimately familiar with is quite hard, and we are already chronically lacking manpower anyway.Isn't it worth someone from the LDC team discussing with the Ubuntu people concerned (e.g. the person who decided to blacklist the package) and try and get their feedback and advice on packaging? My experience is that the Ubuntu team are fairly friendly and helpful. AFAICS the reason this situation has arisen is because you've got a bug on Launchpad that never got communicated as far as the LDC devs. Opening that channel of communication could help prevent something like this happening again.
Sep 21 2012
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 19:59:36 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:I'd add here that you're talking about by far the most widely used distro. […] Isn't it worth someone from the LDC team discussing with the Ubuntu people concerned (e.g. the person who decided to blacklist the package) and try and get their feedback and advice on packaging? My experience is that the Ubuntu team are fairly friendly and helpful.I don't doubt that distro packages are vital for providing a smooth experience for Linux users. However, and this is unfortunately a big "however", at the same time I don't think I will be able to look into providing those packages myself any time soon (besides for Arch, but that front is already covered; big thanks to Sven/svenstaro!), simply because I'm happy if I find enough time to look into any LDC issues whatsoever at all right now. Joseph, Russel, you seem to be both personally interested in D/LDC and quite knowledgeable about Debian-style packaging. Might I suggest that you think about joining the LDC forces as a package maintainer? It certainly isn't a huge amount of work to do, but many small items also add up… Thanks, David
Sep 26 2012
On 26 September 2012 16:46, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> wrote:On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 19:59:36 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wro=te:o.I'd add here that you're talking about by far the most widely used distr=le[=85] Isn't it worth someone from the LDC team discussing with the Ubuntu peop=andconcerned (e.g. the person who decided to blacklist the package) and try=I'mget their feedback and advice on packaging? My experience is that the Ubuntu team are fairly friendly and helpful.I don't doubt that distro packages are vital for providing a smooth experience for Linux users. However, and this is unfortunately a big "however", at the same time I don't think I will be able to look into providing those packages myself any time soon (besides for Arch, but that front is already covered; big thanks to Sven/svenstaro!), simply because =happy if I find enough time to look into any LDC issues whatsoever at all right now. Joseph, Russel, you seem to be both personally interested in D/LDC and qu=iteknowledgeable about Debian-style packaging. Might I suggest that you thin=kabout joining the LDC forces as a package maintainer? It certainly isn't =ahuge amount of work to do, but many small items also add up=85 Thanks, DavidWas it Mattias or Arthur who was the last maintainer? I could probably pull some strings with them to pass it down to a more active / willing maintainer. Heck, I don't mind putting my name down as the package maintainer. Regards --=20 Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) =3D (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Sep 26 2012
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 06:11:08PM +0100, Iain Buclaw wrote:On 26 September 2012 16:46, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> wrote:[...][...] I'm willing to sponsor uploads. I just don't have the time/patience to play around with LDC (or GDC) packaging right now. T -- I am Ohm of Borg. Resistance is voltage over current.Joseph, Russel, you seem to be both personally interested in D/LDC and quite knowledgeable about Debian-style packaging. Might I suggest that you think about joining the LDC forces as a package maintainer? It certainly isn't a huge amount of work to do, but many small items also add up… Thanks, DavidWas it Mattias or Arthur who was the last maintainer? I could probably pull some strings with them to pass it down to a more active / willing maintainer. Heck, I don't mind putting my name down as the package maintainer.
Sep 26 2012
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:On 26 September 2012 16:46, David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> wrote:I have on my personal todo list a few major items (among many others): 1) add support for multiple projects (dmd2 being the only one currently) 2) add packaging of built artifacts for master builds 3) add uploading of packaged builds to github 4) on-demand builds of specific tags -- intended for release builds I have made some of the internal cleanups to the build server to prepare interfaces, not _that_ much on the get things to run a build side. It's been my intent to use gdc and/or ldc as the first examples of non-dmd projects supported by the auto-tester. The result of the above features would be that releases would be fully automated, at least from the point of tag creation through uploaded and publically available packages. I don't know what's involved in getting built-packages into the various distributions. I suspect that a number of them prefer to be built by their own automation from original (or forked) sources. I'd be happy to engage with the appropriate people to explore ways to work together in this space. No promises on any delivery dates, but work is in progress. Thoughts? Later, BradOn Friday, 21 September 2012 at 19:59:36 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:Was it Mattias or Arthur who was the last maintainer? I could probably pull some strings with them to pass it down to a more active / willing maintainer. Heck, I don't mind putting my name down as the package maintainer. Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';I'd add here that you're talking about by far the most widely used distro. [?] Isn't it worth someone from the LDC team discussing with the Ubuntu people concerned (e.g. the person who decided to blacklist the package) and try and get their feedback and advice on packaging? My experience is that the Ubuntu team are fairly friendly and helpful.I don't doubt that distro packages are vital for providing a smooth experience for Linux users. However, and this is unfortunately a big "however", at the same time I don't think I will be able to look into providing those packages myself any time soon (besides for Arch, but that front is already covered; big thanks to Sven/svenstaro!), simply because I'm happy if I find enough time to look into any LDC issues whatsoever at all right now. Joseph, Russel, you seem to be both personally interested in D/LDC and quite knowledgeable about Debian-style packaging. Might I suggest that you think about joining the LDC forces as a package maintainer? It certainly isn't a huge amount of work to do, but many small items also add up? Thanks, David
Sep 26 2012
On Thursday, 27 September 2012 at 00:51:29 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:I have on my personal todo list a few major items (among many others): 1) add support for multiple projects (dmd2 being the only one currently) 2) add packaging of built artifacts for master builds 3) add uploading of packaged builds to github 4) on-demand builds of specific tags -- intended for release buildsAt this point, wouldn't it be easier to use an existing solution like Jenkins, and maybe add a few custom hooks where needed? David
Sep 27 2012
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 05:58:08PM -0700, Brad Roberts wrote: [...]I don't know what's involved in getting built-packages into the various distributions. I suspect that a number of them prefer to be built by their own automation from original (or forked) sources. I'd be happy to engage with the appropriate people to explore ways to work together in this space.[...] For Debian, the process is relatively simple: 1) Create a debian/ subdir in the source tree, with appropriate control files (for existing packages, this has already been done) a) Update debian/changelog to reflect the new version number. b) Adjust any necessary dependencies, etc., in debian/control. 2) Build the package by running 'dpkg-buildpackage ...' in the source tree. This creates a bunch of files (including the binary .deb) in the parent directory. 3) [Optional] Preferably, test the .deb to make sure it doesn't cause massive system breakage. 4) Upload the generated package files in the parent directory by the build process, either by sending it to a sponsor or uploading it directly to the upload queue if you have upload access. The dupload script automatically determines which file(s) should be uploaded. Once the package is uploaded successfully, the autobuilder infrastructure can be used to build the package for the umpteen architectures that Debian supports. IIRC, once the package gets into the Debian archive it will eventually find its way into Ubuntu (and possibly the other Debian derivatives). T -- VI = Visual Irritation
Sep 26 2012
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, H. S. Teoh wrote:On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 05:58:08PM -0700, Brad Roberts wrote: [...]That works well for packages which are single source tree. The current dmd, druntime, phobos, d-programming-language, tools separation makes that a little more challenging to put together, but not a lot. It's probably worth doing regardless. I realize that gdc and ldc are both in better shape in this area already. you. Is there a path for externally built binary packages? That's fairly counter to the general distribution philosophy for most of them, so I'm giong to guess no. Thanks, BradI don't know what's involved in getting built-packages into the various distributions. I suspect that a number of them prefer to be built by their own automation from original (or forked) sources. I'd be happy to engage with the appropriate people to explore ways to work together in this space.[...] For Debian, the process is relatively simple: 1) Create a debian/ subdir in the source tree, with appropriate control files (for existing packages, this has already been done) a) Update debian/changelog to reflect the new version number. b) Adjust any necessary dependencies, etc., in debian/control. 2) Build the package by running 'dpkg-buildpackage ...' in the source tree. This creates a bunch of files (including the binary .deb) in the parent directory. 3) [Optional] Preferably, test the .deb to make sure it doesn't cause massive system breakage. 4) Upload the generated package files in the parent directory by the build process, either by sending it to a sponsor or uploading it directly to the upload queue if you have upload access. The dupload script automatically determines which file(s) should be uploaded. Once the package is uploaded successfully, the autobuilder infrastructure can be used to build the package for the umpteen architectures that Debian supports. IIRC, once the package gets into the Debian archive it will eventually find its way into Ubuntu (and possibly the other Debian derivatives).
Sep 26 2012
On Thursday, 27 September 2012 at 02:07:32 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:That works well for packages which are single source tree. The current dmd, druntime, phobos, d-programming-language, tools separation makes that a little more challenging to put together, but not a lot. It's probably worth doing regardless. I realize that gdc and ldc are both in better shape in this area already.Yep, for LDC "cmake . && make install" should be enough to build and install a working D2 compiler, including druntime and Phobos. David
Sep 27 2012
On 27 September 2012 03:14, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> wrote:On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, H. S. Teoh wrote:built binary-only packages. But for debian, you could possibly do something similar to how eg: the flash-plugin installer package works - downloads the tar.gz/zip from an external site, extract and install / configure in system. Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 05:58:08PM -0700, Brad Roberts wrote: [...]That works well for packages which are single source tree. The current dmd, druntime, phobos, d-programming-language, tools separation makes that a little more challenging to put together, but not a lot. It's probably worth doing regardless. I realize that gdc and ldc are both in better shape in this area already. you. Is there a path for externally built binary packages? That's fairly counter to the general distribution philosophy for most of them, so I'm giong to guess no. Thanks, BradI don't know what's involved in getting built-packages into the various distributions. I suspect that a number of them prefer to be built by their own automation from original (or forked) sources. I'd be happy to engage with the appropriate people to explore ways to work together in this space.[...] For Debian, the process is relatively simple: 1) Create a debian/ subdir in the source tree, with appropriate control files (for existing packages, this has already been done) a) Update debian/changelog to reflect the new version number. b) Adjust any necessary dependencies, etc., in debian/control. 2) Build the package by running 'dpkg-buildpackage ...' in the source tree. This creates a bunch of files (including the binary .deb) in the parent directory. 3) [Optional] Preferably, test the .deb to make sure it doesn't cause massive system breakage. 4) Upload the generated package files in the parent directory by the build process, either by sending it to a sponsor or uploading it directly to the upload queue if you have upload access. The dupload script automatically determines which file(s) should be uploaded. Once the package is uploaded successfully, the autobuilder infrastructure can be used to build the package for the umpteen architectures that Debian supports. IIRC, once the package gets into the Debian archive it will eventually find its way into Ubuntu (and possibly the other Debian derivatives).
Sep 27 2012
On 2012-09-27 09:02, Iain Buclaw wrote:built binary-only packages. But for debian, you could possibly do something similar to how eg: the flash-plugin installer package works - downloads the tar.gz/zip from an external site, extract and install / configure in system.Sorry for hijacking this thread a bit but it would be nice with pre-built binaries of both ldc and gdc. I'm planning to add ldc and gdc to DVM sometime in the future. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Sep 27 2012
On 9/27/2012 12:02 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:On 27 September 2012 03:14, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> wrote:most distributions are going to be happy with the license situation. Nor are they happy with binary only packages for use on the dlang.org site (hosted via github's downloads api). Then, add bundling and pushing to distributions. Focusing back on gdc, what do you currently have in the way of build/test infrastructure today? I poked around the website and wiki and didn't see anything obvious (not that the dmd side is terribly obvious either). If you want to take this offline, feel free to send me mail directly. - Bradyou. Is there a path for externally built binary packages? That's fairly counter to the general distribution philosophy for most of them, so I'm giong to guess no.built binary-only packages. But for debian, you could possibly do something similar to how eg: the flash-plugin installer package works - downloads the tar.gz/zip from an external site, extract and install / configure in system.
Sep 27 2012
On 27/09/12 09:20, Brad Roberts wrote:nor most distributions are going to be happy with the license situation.Would Debian have a problem with a dmd package in non-free? Would Ubuntu have a problem with it in the multiverse or partner repositories?
Sep 27 2012
On 2012-09-27 11:46, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:Would Debian have a problem with a dmd package in non-free? Would Ubuntu have a problem with it in the multiverse or partner repositories?Doesn't at least Ubuntu proprietary software, like drivers? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Sep 27 2012
On 26/09/12 17:46, David Nadlinger wrote:Joseph, Russel, you seem to be both personally interested in D/LDC and quite knowledgeable about Debian-style packaging. Might I suggest that you think about joining the LDC forces as a package maintainer? It certainly isn't a huge amount of work to do, but many small items also add up…I'd love to, but it would be irresponsible to commit to it as (right now especially) I don't have a very good idea of what time I'll be able to offer. I also managed to royally screw up when going through beginners' packaging instructions for Ubuntu, so I'm not sure I'm the best choice here ... :-\
Sep 27 2012
On 27 September 2012 11:02, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> wrote:On 26/09/12 17:46, David Nadlinger wrote:nkJoseph, Russel, you seem to be both personally interested in D/LDC and quite knowledgeable about Debian-style packaging. Might I suggest that you thi=eabout joining the LDC forces as a package maintainer? It certainly isn't a hug=gamount of work to do, but many small items also add up=85I'd love to, but it would be irresponsible to commit to it as (right now especially) I don't have a very good idea of what time I'll be able to offer. I also managed to royally screw up when going through beginners' packagin=instructions for Ubuntu, so I'm not sure I'm the best choice here ... :-\I'd advise to retrieve the LLVM source package and tailor for LDC instead rather than building from scratch. --=20 Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) =3D (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Sep 27 2012
On 27/09/12 12:11, Iain Buclaw wrote:I wasn't even trying to build LDC at the time, just going through some "new to packaging" instructions on Launchpad. BTW when you say "Tailor for LDC" what do you mean? Isn't the LDC package meant to build against the target system LLVM?I also managed to royally screw up when going through beginners' packaging instructions for Ubuntu, so I'm not sure I'm the best choice here ... :-\I'd advise to retrieve the LLVM source package and tailor for LDC instead rather than building from scratch.
Sep 27 2012
On 27 September 2012 11:27, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> wrote:On 27/09/12 12:11, Iain Buclaw wrote:I meant clang. :-) The source package for clang has mostly everything set-up for you. Source deps, Binary deps, etc. I'd imagine the build process would be similar, just a case of replacing the clang sources with ldc, and tweaking the rules file to pick up ldc-specific installed files to package. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';I wasn't even trying to build LDC at the time, just going through some "new to packaging" instructions on Launchpad. BTW when you say "Tailor for LDC" what do you mean? Isn't the LDC package meant to build against the target system LLVM?I also managed to royally screw up when going through beginners' packaging instructions for Ubuntu, so I'm not sure I'm the best choice here ... :-\I'd advise to retrieve the LLVM source package and tailor for LDC instead rather than building from scratch.
Sep 27 2012
On Thursday, 27 September 2012 at 10:43:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:I meant clang. :-)Clang is an entirely different story, because it is built as part of the LLVM source tree/build process, checked out into llvm/tools/clang (at least usually, don't know if it's possible to build it separately)… David
Sep 27 2012
On 27/09/12 12:43, Iain Buclaw wrote:The source package for clang has mostly everything set-up for you. Source deps, Binary deps, etc. I'd imagine the build process would be similar, just a case of replacing the clang sources with ldc, and tweaking the rules file to pick up ldc-specific installed files to package.On a related note ... can we expect to see an updated GDC package in Quantal?
Sep 27 2012
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:46:12AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:On 27/09/12 09:20, Brad Roberts wrote:[...] You'd have to ask the debian-legal mailing list for the official decision. But just to note, non-free is officially *not* a part of Debian, so it can contain anything that can be legally redistributed. T -- Never step over a puddle, always step around it. Chances are that whatever made it is still dripping.debian, nor most distributions are going to be happy with the license situation.Would Debian have a problem with a dmd package in non-free?
Sep 27 2012
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 07:14:12PM -0700, Brad Roberts wrote:On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, H. S. Teoh wrote:You can always have separate packages that depend on each other.On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 05:58:08PM -0700, Brad Roberts wrote: [...]That works well for packages which are single source tree. The current dmd, druntime, phobos, d-programming-language, tools separation makes that a little more challenging to put together, but not a lot. It's probably worth doing regardless. I realize that gdc and ldc are both in better shape in this area already.I don't know what's involved in getting built-packages into the various distributions. I suspect that a number of them prefer to be built by their own automation from original (or forked) sources. I'd be happy to engage with the appropriate people to explore ways to work together in this space.[...] For Debian, the process is relatively simple: 1) Create a debian/ subdir in the source tree, with appropriate control files (for existing packages, this has already been done) a) Update debian/changelog to reflect the new version number. b) Adjust any necessary dependencies, etc., in debian/control. 2) Build the package by running 'dpkg-buildpackage ...' in the source tree. This creates a bunch of files (including the binary .deb) in the parent directory. 3) [Optional] Preferably, test the .deb to make sure it doesn't cause massive system breakage. 4) Upload the generated package files in the parent directory by the build process, either by sending it to a sponsor or uploading it directly to the upload queue if you have upload access. The dupload script automatically determines which file(s) should be uploaded. Once the package is uploaded successfully, the autobuilder infrastructure can be used to build the package for the umpteen architectures that Debian supports. IIRC, once the package gets into the Debian archive it will eventually find its way into Ubuntu (and possibly the other Debian derivatives).you. Is there a path for externally built binary packages? That's fairly counter to the general distribution philosophy for most of them, so I'm giong to guess no.[...] As Iain said, you could follow the path of flash-installer-nonfree, which just contains a script that downloads the binaries from some URL upon installation. Of course, you'd still have to make sure that the downloaded binaries are installed in the correct places[1]. [1] See: http://wiki.debian.org/FilesystemHierarchyStandard T -- INTEL = Only half of "intelligence".
Sep 27 2012
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:20:46AM -0700, Brad Roberts wrote:On 9/27/2012 12:02 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:[...][...] Yeah that's the other way to do it: build your own .deb's, and create an apt repository on dlang.org (or somewhere), then publish the repository URL. Then users can simply add the URL to /etc/apt/sources.list, and they will be able to use apt-get/aptitude to directly download and install it. You can even include a file in /etc/apt/sources.list.d in your .deb, so that once users install it the first time, the next package upgrade will automatically pull any new versions from dlang.org. As an example, this is what Opera does. T -- Never step over a puddle, always step around it. Chances are that whatever made it is still dripping.built binary-only packages. But for debian, you could possibly do something similar to how eg: the flash-plugin installer package works - downloads the tar.gz/zip from an external site, extract and install / configure in system.debian, nor most distributions are going to be happy with the license situation. Nor are they happy with binary only packages anyway. The source bundling and pushing to distributions.
Sep 27 2012
On Sep 27, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> wrote:On 9/27/2012 12:02 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:wrote:On 27 September 2012 03:14, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> =mis-interpreting=20fairlyyou. Is there a path for externally built binary packages? That's =I'mcounter to the general distribution philosophy for most of them, so =debian, nor most distributions are going to be happy=20giong to guess no. =20=20 built binary-only packages. But for debian, you could possibly do something similar to how eg: the flash-plugin installer package works - downloads the tar.gz/zip from an external site, extract and install / configure in system.with the license situation. Nor are they happy with binary only =for use on the dlang.org site (hosted via github's downloads api). =bundling and pushing to distributions.I think you're probably right, but it's worth noting that the Ubuntu = install asks whether to install a set of proprietary software at some = point. So the thought of a DMD package available to Ubuntu users = somehow seems entirely reasonable.=
Sep 27 2012
On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 07:50 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote: [=E2=80=A6]Yeah that's the other way to do it: build your own .deb's, and create an apt repository on dlang.org (or somewhere), then publish the repository URL. Then users can simply add the URL to /etc/apt/sources.list, and they will be able to use apt-get/aptitude to directly download and install it. You can even include a file in /etc/apt/sources.list.d in your .deb, so that once users install it the first time, the next package upgrade will automatically pull any new versions from dlang.org. =20 As an example, this is what Opera does.Use of /etc/apt/sources.list.d turns out to be anathema to those of use who use approx. Having a D apt repository remains a good move. In fact isn't there one already? It's contents could be widened to include all deb from D stuff. (Except I haven't actually been able to make it work :-( --=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
Sep 27 2012
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 17:46 +0200, David Nadlinger wrote: [=E2=80=A6]Joseph, Russel, you seem to be both personally interested in=20 D/LDC and quite knowledgeable about Debian-style packaging. Might=20 I suggest that you think about joining the LDC forces as a=20 package maintainer? It certainly isn't a huge amount of work to=20 do, but many small items also add up=E2=80=A6It is certainly a considerable proposition. However I think getting an active Debian Maintainer to take the materials onto his/her list of responsibilities would, in my view, be a far more productive approach. There are git-based tools for managing Debian packaging builds which fit well with D being a Git oriented community.=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
Sep 27 2012
On 28/09/12 00:31, Russel Winder wrote:Having a D apt repository remains a good move. In fact isn't there one already? It's contents could be widened to include all deb from D stuff.There certainly used to be, but IIRC it has fallen into disuse. But it's still better to have packages in the official repos, because that way people will be able to access them immediately without having to look for 3rd-party repos.
Sep 27 2012
On 09/27/2012 12:02 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:I'd love to, but it would be irresponsible to commit to it as (right now especially) I don't have a very good idea of what time I'll be able to offer.Just to follow up here -- a couple of days ago I pulled LDC from GitHub and built it. First time I've tried LDC in a while as up until fairly recently I was not aware of the work on GitHub. Very nice and friendly build process -- I like the inclusion of druntime and phobos as submodules. The executables produced are nice and fast -- maybe about 10-15% slower than GDC for the number-crunching code I tested, but much faster than dmd-compiled programs, and the compilation process itself is super-fast. I'll try and follow up in about 6 weeks' time by which time I should be settled in new job. If it's all all right time-wise, and if someone can mentor me in production of good-quality deb files, I'd be willing to reconsider the maintainer issue. :-)
Oct 02 2012
On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 at 13:46:58 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:The executables produced are nice and fast -- maybe about 10-15% slower than GDC for the number-crunching code I tested, […]Is any of the code public, in the sense that you could give e.g. me access for benchmarking purposes? We are currently using a presumably suboptimal optimization pass schedule, which for example doesn't include the auto vectorizer, but are going to switch to a new built-in pass manager soon (which uses the same pass schedule as Clang), and it would be very interesting to see its impact on performance-critical code. David
Oct 02 2012
On 10/02/2012 06:14 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:Is any of the code public, in the sense that you could give e.g. me access for benchmarking purposes? We are currently using a presumably suboptimal optimization pass schedule, which for example doesn't include the auto vectorizer, but are going to switch to a new built-in pass manager soon (which uses the same pass schedule as Clang), and it would be very interesting to see its impact on performance-critical code.Here you go. :-) https://github.com/WebDrake/Dregs It's surely not the best D code ever written (it possibly inherits too much from C++ in design terms), but hopefully it's still useful for your purposes.
Oct 02 2012
On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 21:00 +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: [=E2=80=A6]Isn't it worth someone from the LDC team discussing with the Ubuntu peopl=e=20concerned (e.g. the person who decided to blacklist the package) and try =and get=20their feedback and advice on packaging? My experience is that the Ubuntu=team=20are fairly friendly and helpful.Perhaps even better talk with the Debian people to find a route into the Debian repository, which then automatically gets to be part of Ubuntu and Mint. =20AFAICS the reason this situation has arisen is because you've got a bug o=n=20Launchpad that never got communicated as far as the LDC devs. Opening th=at=20channel of communication could help prevent something like this happening=again. Indeed. --=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
Sep 22 2012
On 22/09/12 11:13, Russel Winder wrote:Perhaps even better talk with the Debian people to find a route into the Debian repository, which then automatically gets to be part of Ubuntu and Mint.In the bigger picture yes, but as in this case it's Ubuntu that's blacklisted the package, probably best to go straight to them. There may also be a benefit in having a direct relationship with Ubuntu because their more frequent release cycle may make it easier to ensure the most up-to-date package is out there. IIRC their relationship with most packages in Debian is to take a snapshot of Sid at a particular point in time, so if you've got a new release of LDC after that snapshot is taken, it may be passed over unless you go to Ubuntu directly.
Sep 23 2012