Error after installing DMD v2.063

[David Nadlinger]

On Wednesday, 5 June 2013 at 17:24:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> In my experience, xz has way worse compression time than bzip2, 
> and on smaller
> files, it actually compresses worse. Where xz shines are large 
> files. It
> definitely beats out bzip2 by a fair bit there. But as it loses 
> at small files
> (which distro packages usually are), it seems very off to me 
> that Arch Linux
> switched to used xz from gzip. It would have made for more 
> sense to switch to
> bzip2.

If I were you, I'd assume that the Arch Linux devs have done 
their homework, and xz actually compresses a typical package 
better than bzip2 does.

And indeed, when I compared different compression formats to 
figure out how to distribute the LDC binary packages, I found 
that xz compresses our packages quite a bit better than bzip2 
does, while being faster at *de*compressing, which is what 
matters for users.

As far as compression speed goes, I actually find it to be mostly 
irrelevant for packaging binary releases: I don't care whether 
the archive creation part of my scripts takes 5 or 50 seconds to 
run, uploading the archives probably takes longer anyway, unless 
I'm on the university internet connection.

David