Compiling with gdc vs. gdmd

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 04-04-2012 12:54, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 4 April 2012 11:45, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
> <joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net>  wrote:
>>> What went wrong here is that the Debian guys tried to package something as
>>> a
>>> system-level package when it isn't supposed to be. I don't really see
>>> anything
>>> wrong in the Waf dev trying to prevent this; not doing so is letting
>>> Debian
>>> shoot itself in the foot, only to come back to Waf later and complain,
>>> when they
>>> were already warned.
>>>
>>> So, I just think you should reevaluate what you're basing your decision on
>>> here. :)
>>
>>
>> It's not just the packaging issue that's at stake re Debian -- there's also
>> the way in which the developer has played games with non-free licensing (not
>> a good sign IMO), and the fact that the zipped-up code in the waf script
>> contains an obfuscated copy that is not identical to upstream.
>>
>> In fact, for Debian this was never about the packaging -- they only
>> considered packaging BECAUSE the script included a zipped-up and obfuscated
>> part.  See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg00207.html and in
>> particular the passage reading,
>>
>>> This means that we are distributing files derived from the waf.git
>>> source code, but not the waf.git source code itself.  This is of
>>> course completely unacceptable in Debian.  (It is not a violation of
>>> the copyright on waf itself as waf has a permissive non-copyleft
>>> licence; but will be a breach of the copyright on any GPL'd waf-using
>>> package, because the GPL's requirements extend to the build system.)
>>>
>>> I suggest the following fix:
>>>
>>>   * Upstream waf should be packaged somehow.
>>
>>
>> As for me, DFSG compatibility is important, so I'm not happy using a build
>> script that has these issues.  My code would almost certainly be released
>> under GPL or AGPL, so I'd also fall foul of the licensing issues identified.
>>
>> I don't think it's worth discussing this further -- I don't want to turn the
>> d.gnu list into a big debate on Debian policy or licensing technicalities --
>> but from a gdc point of view I'd really welcome ideas on alternative build
>> systems that work well with gdc.
>>
>
> That's fine, debate away! It's a nice change than it being quiet in here. :~)
>
>
>> (Sorry if this sounds like I'm making trouble for the sake of it.  I'm
>> concerned because to my mind one of the principal problems for D was for a
>> long time the lack of effective free/open source implementations.  I'm keen
>> for D to be well integrated into the FOSS ecosystem, and that means
>> considering other aspects than just the compiler, now solved very well by
>> gdc.)
>>
>
> There's actually more than one side of the argument here other than
> the one you raise, that are creeping up recurring topics alley.
>
> On the note of integration into the FOSS ecosystem, I'm firing off
> technical review of gdc for inclusion sometime later today.
>

Woo! Great news!

-- 
- Alex