D being talked about at gcc.gnu.org

[Sean Kelly]

Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:36:07 -0800, Brad Roberts wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, clayasaurus wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if anyone has ever seen this link? Sorry if it has been brought up
>>> before.
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00541.html
>> Yup.. subject has been brought up several times.  The problem is to be 
>> integrated into the official gnu gcc source tree copyright has to be 
>> signed over to the fsf.  That's a showstopper, unfortunatly.  IMHO, that's 
>> a draconian policy, but it's RMS's right to set those policies for 
>> software under the FSF umbrella no matter how much I think it hurts/sucks.
>>
>> Thankfully, building GDC out of tree like it is today is very very easy.
> 
> Yet it would be nice if it would be more easy to start using the compiler.
> Building it is for a lot programmers not really an option. Well, it should
> be but I guess most programmers are simply lazy.

The problem I had was that I couldn't find a short summary on how to do 
this, and so I wasn't exactly sure of the process.  But Thomas K's post 
here a while back helped a lot.  Still, it's a bit more complicated than 
simply choosing GDC from the package install tool and clicking a button.

> I'm planning to build packages for GDC on Fedora and Debian. Not that I
> know a lot about packaging. It would be, however, very useful to have a
> build procedure or package management or apt or yum source for GDC.
> 
> Perhaps I can convince people like Dag Wieers to host such a package on
> his repositories? I'll talk to Dag about it. I was thinking about creating
> a new .spec file (rather than patching for example the gcc4.spec file of
> for example Fedora).

This would be nice.


Sean