Opinion of February 2012

[Zachary Lund]

On Saturday, 4 February 2012 at 17:14:41 UTC, Jesse Phillips 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 February 2012 at 16:52:04 UTC, Zachary Lund 
> wrote:
>
>> Arch Linux chose to remove the D1 package and add the D2 
>> package and not keep both simply because of the retarded name 
>> incompatibilities.
>
> That just seems silly. The package builder can make the binary 
> name whatever they choose. And from the Linux side it makes 
> even less sense because it is extremely common. gcc, is it GCC 
> 4.7, 3.2, 8.5, 967, clang? No, it is a symbolic link to 
> whatever you want.
>
> This is what hive have DDebber[1] doing, though because of your 
> previous post I see that I got the version naming of libphobos2 
> wrong. I was going to develop it further to package Tango and 
> allow v1 and 2 to install together, but such effort appears 
> less and less important.

The difference is that gcc is supposed to be interchangeable. The 
same can't be said for dmd1 and dmd2. While the results are 
sometimes different with different binaries of gcc, the idea is 
that it shouldn't be.

Basically, what happened was D said, "dmd isn't similar to dmd, 
but keeping the name dmd makes sense".