Opinion of February 2012
admin at computerquip.com
Sat Feb 4 09:31:41 PST 2012
On Saturday, 4 February 2012 at 17:14:41 UTC, Jesse Phillips
> On Saturday, 4 February 2012 at 16:52:04 UTC, Zachary Lund
>> Arch Linux chose to remove the D1 package and add the D2
>> package and not keep both simply because of the retarded name
> 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 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".
More information about the Digitalmars-d