Compiling with gdc vs. gdmd

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 04-04-2012 12:45, Joseph Rushton Wakeling 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.

It's not obfuscated; the code is just rewritten to be as compact as 
possible. This is part of Waf's own build process. I'm not sure this is 
as bad as "obfuscated" makes it sound...

>
> 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.

GPL extends to the build system? This is news to me... that seems a 
little overzealous... (or maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly)

But point taken. If that's how the GPL works, then that's how it is.

>
> 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 just don't think I'm seeing where the problem arises, since Waf's 
license is very permissive. But IANAL, etc. ;)

>
> 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.

Oh, don't worry - most discussions on the D newsgroups in general often 
branch into rather tangential discussions; people don't really mind this 
at all.

>
> (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.)

Not at all. This discussion has been enlightening to me as well.

>
>> (Not sure if you know, but Waf can do all of those.)
>
> That's nice. :-)

All this being said, I don't know of any other good build tool for D 
(and GDC in particular) at the moment. You may have to resort to using 
Make and/or Autotools. :/

-- 
- Alex