Shared library packaging issues

[GreatEmerald via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 17 November 2014 at 02:29:54 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> Exactly a year ago I created a poll[1] about the include path
> and 65% voted for "dlang" over just "d". We should stick to
> "/usr/include/dlang" now for a consistent experience across
> distributions. Compilers' import paths are less of an issue as
> they are either built-in or configured in dmd.conf. But for
> build tools it would be nice if imports for library X could
> always be found in "/usr/include/dlang/X/".

Fair enough, although if the issue with different compilers 
making a different ABI persists, then wouldn't it be a good idea 
to put it into /usr/include/{dmd,gdc,ldc} or something?

But otherwise I pinged some people on openSUSE and it seems there 
is some interest in D, so now we have a separate project for it. 
Maintaining a separate libphobos2 doesn't look very hard after 
all.

Though I'm still a bit unsure about the whole druntime part. The 
official RPM doesn't include any libraries for druntime, only 
includes, albeit building it from source does produce a druntime 
library. Is it worth separating it out into its own package? Or 
should it be part of dmd-devel instead? (druntime-devel doesn't 
really sound right if there is no actual druntime package 
itself...)