Arch Linux users and packagers : upcoming coomunity/dmd package change

[Iain Buclaw]

On 18 May 2013 20:09, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 5/18/13 8:59 AM, nazriel wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 18 May 2013 at 15:26:49 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 18 May 2013 at 14:19:08 UTC, nazriel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Will be shared library installed alongside with static library?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>  Cool!
>>
>>  Will libdruntime.so belong to druntime package?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. Currently there is no separate druntime package as druntime is
>>> part of phobos binary. This will be a separate issue to address when
>>> I'll start decoupling Phobos.
>>>
>>>  Yeah, this "druntime is part of phobos binary" business sux.
>> I guess druntime and phobos make files would require tweaking in order
>> to allow building druntime as standalone library.
>>
>> On other hand, AFAIK both LDC and GDC uses modified version of druntime.
>> That would require 3 different packages for druntime. Be it:
>> gdc-druntime, ldc-druntime and dmd-druntime - wonder if this could be
>> improved somehow
>>
>
> I fully agree with the desire to make the compilers interchangeable like
> this, but practical reality is that they aren't.  Trying to pretend they
> are and making it look like they are to end users is just going to lead to
> frustration and disappointment, I suspect.
>
> You cannot take the output or runtime from any of the three and use it
> with any other of the three's outputs (except maybe in some of the most
> trivial examples).  Hopefully one day, but that day isn't here yet.
>
>
Agreed.  I had this discussion recently too along the topic of:  Should we
allow people to install libphobos/libdruntime in a common library
directory, or keep it private as an integral part of the compiler?   IMO,
giving given it's close ties between the two, it should always be integral,
and the idea of linking against libphobos from an application written in
something other than D is still not in any way feasible task.

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-announce/attachments/20130518/b318509b/attachment.html>