make install; where do .di files go?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 05:45:07PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:00:32 -0700
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 04:37:32PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:48:54 +0200 Jordi Sayol <g.sayol at yahoo.es>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Linux dmd will not include /usr/include/d path by default to
> > > > avoid conflicts with ldc1 (tango) "object.di" incompatibility,
> > > > and I recommend you to not use this path for that reason.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Then we can use '/usr/include/d2'. Problem solved ;)
> > 
> > I propose /usr/include/d/${version}/. It will make it possible for
> > multiple versions of dmd to coexist, as well as eliminate version
> > incompatibility problems (or at least make them very unlikely).
> > 
> > Mixing everything in /usr/include/d (or /usr/include/d2) with the
> > fact that dmd releases have been incompatible with older
> > druntime/phobos is just asking for trouble.
> > 
> 
> If by ${version} you mean 2.059, 2.060, etc., then I don't like that.
> I don't want to have to have the same library installed separately for
> every version of DMD on my system. That's just a mess.

If you have multiple versions of DMD sharing the same /usr/include/d,
that's even more of a mess.

Of course, ideally, when you upgrade DMD it will also uninstall the
older stuff so that you don't have like 50 stale copies of
druntime/phobos after upgrading 50 times. That's something for the
package manager to take care of. :-P


> A way to have multiple versions of the same lib would be good though.
> Although that's one of the reasons I prefer to just use -I instead of
> messing with system-wide installation anyway.

How else would you have multiple versions of the same lib, though? They
can't all live in the same place since files will conflict.


T

-- 
Life is complex. It consists of real and imaginary parts. -- YHL