Compiling with gdc vs. gdmd

[Iain Buclaw]

On 4 April 2012 11:45, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
<joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net> wrote:
>> What went wrong here is that the Debian guys tried to package something as
>> a
>> system-level package when it isn't supposed to be. I don't really see
>> anything
>> wrong in the Waf dev trying to prevent this; not doing so is letting
>> Debian
>> shoot itself in the foot, only to come back to Waf later and complain,
>> when they
>> were already warned.
>>
>> So, I just think you should reevaluate what you're basing your decision on
>> here. :)
>
>
> It's not just the packaging issue that's at stake re Debian -- there's also
> the way in which the developer has played games with non-free licensing (not
> a good sign IMO), and the fact that the zipped-up code in the waf script
> contains an obfuscated copy that is not identical to upstream.
>
> In fact, for Debian this was never about the packaging -- they only
> considered packaging BECAUSE the script included a zipped-up and obfuscated
> part.  See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/02/msg00207.html and in
> particular the passage reading,
>
>> This means that we are distributing files derived from the waf.git
>> source code, but not the waf.git source code itself.  This is of
>> course completely unacceptable in Debian.  (It is not a violation of
>> the copyright on waf itself as waf has a permissive non-copyleft
>> licence; but will be a breach of the copyright on any GPL'd waf-using
>> package, because the GPL's requirements extend to the build system.)
>>
>> I suggest the following fix:
>>
>>  * Upstream waf should be packaged somehow.
>
>
> As for me, DFSG compatibility is important, so I'm not happy using a build
> script that has these issues.  My code would almost certainly be released
> under GPL or AGPL, so I'd also fall foul of the licensing issues identified.
>
> I don't think it's worth discussing this further -- I don't want to turn the
> d.gnu list into a big debate on Debian policy or licensing technicalities --
> but from a gdc point of view I'd really welcome ideas on alternative build
> systems that work well with gdc.
>

That's fine, debate away! It's a nice change than it being quiet in here. :~)


> (Sorry if this sounds like I'm making trouble for the sake of it.  I'm
> concerned because to my mind one of the principal problems for D was for a
> long time the lack of effective free/open source implementations.  I'm keen
> for D to be well integrated into the FOSS ecosystem, and that means
> considering other aspects than just the compiler, now solved very well by
> gdc.)
>

There's actually more than one side of the argument here other than
the one you raise, that are creeping up recurring topics alley.

On the note of integration into the FOSS ecosystem, I'm firing off
technical review of gdc for inclusion sometime later today.

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';