FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Building 2.0 on Linux, 1 problem

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Build
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jeremy_c



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
Location: Ohio, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:21 pm    Post subject: Building 2.0 on Linux, 1 problem Reply with quote

Just figured I would let you know of one problem I have when building build on Linux. It is easily solved, so here it is:

Code:

$ make -f Makefile.unix
make: *** No rule to make target `util/bmscanner.d', needed by `build'.  Stop.
$ mv util/BMscanner.d util/bmscanner.d
$ make -f Makefile.unix


Now all works fine, so it was just BMscanner.d in the .ZIP file.

Also, can I make a suggestion? When unziping a zip, tar.gz or any archive file, I expect that it will make a directory of the project name. Instead build extracts to trunk. I have see others do that here on dsource.org.

I would *highly* recommend that it should extract to the project name and version, in this case: build-2.0 ... That would make life much easier on the users part (I think).

BTW... thank you very much! I'm using build on the D DBI project. It's a great tool.

Jeremy
http://jeremy.cowgar.com[/code]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
afb



Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 137
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:47 am    Post subject: Re: Building 2.0 on Linux, 1 problem Reply with quote

jerc wrote:

Also, can I make a suggestion? When unziping a zip, tar.gz or any archive file, I expect that it will make a directory of the project name. Instead build extracts to trunk. I have see others do that here on dsource.org.

I would *highly* recommend that it should extract to the project name and version, in this case: build-2.0 ... That would make life much easier on the users part (I think).


You can safely assume that when you download a zip file, it will:

  • have a weird name (dmd.120.zip, mango_release_1-3.zip, etc)
  • will not have an enclosing directory, but expand in the trunk
  • the textfiles will have DOS line endings (\r\n)


This is opposed to the regular UNIX tarballs, which are:

  • will be named: name-version.tar.gz (or .tar.bzip2)
  • will always have a directory named "name-version"
  • will have text files with UNIX line endings (\n)


http://en.tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-Release-Practice-HOWTO/distpractice.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek Parnell



Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 408
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Building 2.0 on Linux, 1 problem Reply with quote

jerc wrote:
Just figured I would let you know of one problem I have when building build on Linux. It is easily solved, so here it is:

Code:

$ make -f Makefile.unix
make: *** No rule to make target `util/bmscanner.d', needed by `build'.  Stop.
$ mv util/BMscanner.d util/bmscanner.d
$ make -f Makefile.unix


Now all works fine, so it was just BMscanner.d in the .ZIP file.


Fixed. I renamed the file to all lowercase, as it should have been.

jerc wrote:

Also, can I make a suggestion? When unziping a zip, tar.gz or any archive file, I expect that it will make a directory of the project name. Instead build extracts to trunk. I have see others do that here on dsource.org.

I would *highly* recommend that it should extract to the project name and version, in this case: build-2.0 ... That would make life much easier on the users part (I think).

I'll consider it.

When I unzip a file, I always create a directory for it to go into. I don't rely on the creater of the ZIP file to have done the right thing by following convention.
_________________
--
Derek
skype name: derek.j.parnell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jeremy_c



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
Location: Ohio, USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Building 2.0 on Linux, 1 problem Reply with quote

Derek Parnell wrote:

I'll consider it.

When I unzip a file, I always create a directory for it to go into. I don't rely on the creater of the ZIP file to have done the right thing by following convention.


When thinking about this, think of package maintainers too. On Linux, it is virtually unheard of for a file *not* to extract into a directory packagename-version. Therefore, many package managers unzip and change to that directory.

It makes it very difficult for some systems to build packages without alot of human intervention. I use ArchLinux and have to twist and warp it's build system to make it build a package for build so others can use the package. It's no fun. The DMD compiler is worse, only providing a download of dmd.zip with no version number. Build systems look in the cache and see that they already have dmd.zip (the old version) and don't download the latest.

Please consider the naming convention strongly for the sake of making the tool more package friendly, which in turn, will hopefully make it available with ease on many Linux systems (oh, NetBsd is the same way).

Jeremy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek Parnell



Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 408
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Building 2.0 on Linux, 1 problem Reply with quote

jerc wrote:
When thinking about this, think of package maintainers too. On Linux, it is virtually unheard of for a file *not* to extract into a directory packagename-version. Therefore, many package managers unzip and change to that directory.

Just checking to see if I've got it right...

If I'm releasing version 2.03 of the Build utility, I should name the ZIP file "build-2.03.zip", and where I've currently got "trunk" as the top level directory in that ZIP, I should rename that to "build-2.03".
_________________
--
Derek
skype name: derek.j.parnell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek Parnell



Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 408
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Building 2.0 on Linux, 1 problem Reply with quote

jerc wrote:
When thinking about this, think of package maintainers too. On Linux, it is virtually unheard of for a file *not* to extract into a directory packagename-version. Therefore, many package managers unzip and change to that directory.

Just checking to see if I've got it right...

If I'm releasing version 2.03 of the Build utility, I should name the ZIP file "build-2.03.zip", and where I've currently got "trunk" as the top level directory in that ZIP, I should rename that to "build-2.03".
_________________
--
Derek
skype name: derek.j.parnell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carlos



Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Location: Canyon, TX

PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a problem building build on linux: source.d, line 286. It says "lNextMod". I think it should be "lNextModule". I made that change and it seemed to work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
jeremy_c



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
Location: Ohio, USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Building 2.0 on Linux, 1 problem Reply with quote

Derek Parnell wrote:

Just checking to see if I've got it right...

If I'm releasing version 2.03 of the Build utility, I should name the ZIP file "build-2.03.zip", and where I've currently got "trunk" as the top level directory in that ZIP, I should rename that to "build-2.03".


Yes, you have it right.

Jeremy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jeremy_c



Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
Location: Ohio, USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

2.03 looks great! Thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Build All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group