make install; where do .di files go?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 03:01:33AM +0300, Manu wrote:
> On 17 October 2012 00:00, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 04:37:32PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:48:54 +0200 Jordi Sayol <g.sayol at yahoo.es>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Al 16/10/12 17:17, En/na Manu ha escrit:
> > [...]
> > > > > Can DMD just be fixed to include [local/]/include/d in it's
> > > > > default search paths? I presume GDC and LDC already look
> > > > > there?
> > > >
> > > > Linux dmd will not include /usr/include/d path by default to
> > > > avoid conflicts with ldc1 (tango) "object.di" incompatibility,
> > > > and I recommend you to not use this path for that reason.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then we can use '/usr/include/d2'. Problem solved ;)
> >
> > I propose /usr/include/d/${version}/. It will make it possible for
> > multiple versions of dmd to coexist, as well as eliminate version
> > incompatibility problems (or at least make them very unlikely).
> >
> > Mixing everything in /usr/include/d (or /usr/include/d2) with the
> > fact that dmd releases have been incompatible with older
> > druntime/phobos is just asking for trouble.
> >
> 
> I don't really care about the compilers own drunntime/phobos.  I want
> to know where to install 3rd party libs.  They should be identical no
> matter what compiler is compiling them. C has /usr/[local/]include/

I think there was some talk recently about standardizing on
/usr/include/d (or /usr/include/d2). But I don't know if a clear
decision was made.


T

-- 
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Use your hands...