make install; where do .di files go?

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:08:13 +0300
Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17 October 2012 12:28, Nick Sabalausky <
> SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:56:02 -0700
> > "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately, I see only two realistic possibilities:
> >
> > A. Forget about system-wide lib installation and pass -I... to the
> > compiler for each lib you're using. Kind of a pain but...
> >
> > B. Wait for a proper D package manager.
> >
> > Personally, I choose "A", at least for the time being ;)
> >
> 
> What about C: Nominate a place, just like C does??
> I don't see the problem. Where is the essential difference from
> system-wide installed C libraries?
> 

I was referring to the "How else would you have multiple versions of
the same lib". If all libs are put into the same directory, then you
can't have multiple versions of the same one without giving each
version a different name. I wouldn't want to have to search/replace all
"import foobar-1-0;" with "import foobar-1-11;" everytime I upgrade a
lib.

I guess what you could do is have a directory structure like this:

/usr/include/d2/foobar/1.0/foobar.d
/usr/include/d2/foobar/1.7/foobar.d
/usr/include/d2/foobar/2.1/foobar.d

But then you'd still have to use -I... when you import anything, which
removes some of the benefit of having one standard installation
directory for libs. But I guess that is still an improvement over just
not having any standard install directory.