[dmd-beta] dmd 2.063 beta 5

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 18:11:43 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/24/2013 2:10 PM, Mike Wey wrote:
> > On 05/24/2013 12:11 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2013 2:29 PM, Mike Wey wrote:
> >>> While the phobos makefile now builds libphobos2.so.0.63.0 and symlinks
> >>> libphobos2.so / libphobos2.so.0.63. The beta zip contains only
> >>> libphobos2.so, is that intentional?
> >> 
> >> Yes, it is intentional. Zip files can't contain symlinks, but I want
> >> people to have the zip file usable without having to manually create
> >> symlinks. I expect the linux packager to set the name and symlinks.
> > 
> > Since the shared phobos lib has it's soname set to "libphobos2.so.0.63"
> > when you link with libphobos2.so, at program start up it will be looking
> > for libphobos2.so.0.63 which will fail.
> 
> What do you suggest? Considering that zip files don't have symlinks in them.

That would actually be a really good reason to not put all of the OS releases 
in a single zip file. If they were separated (as a number of people have been 
requesting for some time), then the POSIX ones could use tar.gz or tar.bz2 or 
whatever to hold it all, and those can hold symlinks.

Another possibility would be to stop using zip. There _are_ programs on 
Windows which can handle tar.gz and the like (e.g. 7zip), and it wouldn't 
surprise me if 7zip's own format could handle symlinks (though I don't know), 
and a lot of devs are likely to have 7zip installed. It _is_ a bit of a 
negative to _have_ to have something like 7zip installed, but I believe that 
there are already quite a few folks who release stuff in 7zip for Windows 
rather than zip (though it's still a lot less common than zip).

Separating them out would be the better option IMHO (particularly since it's 
an oft-requested change), but changing the file format would work to.

- Jonathan M Davis