On 09/04/12 16:24, Kagamin wrote:
GPL doesn't prohibit distribution in binary form, it's about rights, not form.
The point is that there may be no meaningful "corresponding source" to the
zipped-up code. Cf. my other emails in the thread and the Debian discussions
linked to.
On 09-04-2012 16:24, Kagamin wrote:
On Friday, 6 April 2012 at 13:00:34 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Yes, but -- if I understand correctly -- the Waf binary is provided as
an integral part of the source distribution. It's not just another
program that sits elsewhere on your computer and c
On Friday, 6 April 2012 at 13:00:34 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
Yes, but -- if I understand correctly -- the Waf binary is
provided as an integral part of the source distribution. It's
not just another program that sits elsewhere on your computer
and can be installed independently.
I
On 03/04/2012 22:11, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-04-03 22:36, Robert Clipsham wrote:
So use D! I use D for my build script, works just fine.
https://github.com/mrmonday/serenity/blob/master/build.d
In ~365 LoC that I hacked together and didn't put much effort in to it
builds a library and a
On 07/04/12 06:08, Daniel Green wrote:
At this point, the waf binary should be considered no different than a zip file
containing source. It's just that this fact isn't obvious.
In GPL terms, cf. my earlier answer:
The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for makin
On 4/6/2012 8:00 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
In fact, the zipped-up wscript is contained within the build script as a
binary blob, no? This alone is enough to make it fall under the GPL
provisions.
An interesting thing to note about the waf binary blob. Currently, it
actually extracts
Joseph Rushton Wakeling, el 6 de abril a las 15:00 me escribiste:
> On 06/04/12 08:11, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> >OK, I understand what you're saying, but I think there's a misunderstanding
> >here: With Waf, you *do* write a build script like you do with e.g. Make, and
> >this so-called wscrip
On 06/04/12 08:11, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
OK, I understand what you're saying, but I think there's a misunderstanding
here: With Waf, you *do* write a build script like you do with e.g. Make, and
this so-called wscript sits outside Waf. See for example:
https://github.com/lycus/mci/blob/maste
Joseph Rushton Wakeling, el 5 de abril a las 17:42 me escribiste:
> On 05/04/12 13:16, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >Joseph Rushton Wakeling, el 4 de abril a las 15:43 me escribiste:
> >>To see why it matters, imagine a corporate entity releasing a large,
> >>complex piece of software where the cod
On 05-04-2012 23:30, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 05/04/12 20:56, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
*Confused*. The way I see it, this situation is exactly equivalent to
having a
readily-available Autotools script that relies on a proprietary
Autotools?
No, because it's _contained within_ the bu
On 05/04/12 20:56, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
*Confused*. The way I see it, this situation is exactly equivalent to having a
readily-available Autotools script that relies on a proprietary Autotools?
No, because it's _contained within_ the build script. Everything within the
build script has
On 05-04-2012 20:31, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 05/04/12 18:16, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
In that case, that doesn't stop Waf though - your Waf build script is
just in
plain source form while Waf itself (which runs the script) is in
compressed form.
But it does, for exactly the reasons
On 05/04/12 18:16, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
In that case, that doesn't stop Waf though - your Waf build script is just in
plain source form while Waf itself (which runs the script) is in compressed
form.
But it does, for exactly the reasons I outlined. GPL-wise, that zipped-up part
would b
On 05-04-2012 17:52, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 04/04/12 15:43, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
To see why it matters, imagine a corporate entity releasing a large,
complex
piece of software where the code was under a free licence but the
build system
was proprietary and internal to the co
On 04/04/12 15:43, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
To see why it matters, imagine a corporate entity releasing a large, complex
piece of software where the code was under a free licence but the build system
was proprietary and internal to the company. It'd be a major block to
practically enjoying
On 05/04/12 13:16, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Joseph Rushton Wakeling, el 4 de abril a las 15:43 me escribiste:
To see why it matters, imagine a corporate entity releasing a large,
complex piece of software where the code was under a free licence
but the build system was proprietary and internal
Joseph Rushton Wakeling, el 4 de abril a las 15:43 me escribiste:
> On 04/04/12 14:24, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> >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
Iain Buclaw, el 4 de abril a las 11:54 me escribiste:
> On the note of integration into the FOSS ecosystem, I'm firing off
> technical review of gdc for inclusion sometime later today.
YEAH! :D
--
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/
---
On 04/04/12 12:54, Iain Buclaw wrote:
That's fine, debate away! It's a nice change than it being quiet in here. :~)
Glad to be bringing some noise and jollity into the house :-)
There's actually more than one side of the argument here other than
the one you raise, that are creeping up recurri
On 04/04/12 14:24, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
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.
From Section 1 of the GPL:
The “Correspond
On 04-04-2012 12:54, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 4 April 2012 11:45, 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;
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
On 4 April 2012 11:45, 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
>> D
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 compl
On 2012-04-04 10:19, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Fair enough. But I guess that's just personal taste, I really like Make
syntax better (the only thing that annoys me is $(variables) and
$(function call) syntax, that could be definitely better).
But to me this:
file "prog" => ["a.o", "b.o"] do |t|
Jacob Carlborg, el 3 de abril a las 19:38 me escribiste:
> >Make is only a small part of the picture, is just a dependency tracking
> >program, and a pretty good one if you ask me (but I agree it could be
> >better), to work you have to specify the dependencies (manually or
> >automatically, it's
On 04-04-2012 05:09, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 03/04/12 04:04, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 03-04-2012 01:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 03/04/12 00:48, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
The Waf meta build system has good support for both GDC and LDC.
I'm reluctant to use Waf due to
On 03/04/12 04:04, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 03-04-2012 01:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 03/04/12 00:48, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
The Waf meta build system has good support for both GDC and LDC.
I'm reluctant to use Waf due to the issues described here ... :-(
http://lists.debia
On 2012-04-03 22:36, Robert Clipsham wrote:
So use D! I use D for my build script, works just fine.
https://github.com/mrmonday/serenity/blob/master/build.d
In ~365 LoC that I hacked together and didn't put much effort in to it
builds a library and a binary, prints a coloured status update, sup
On 4/3/12, Robert Clipsham wrote:
> So use D! I use D for my build script, works just fine.
And for the user it's a simple call to 'rdmd script.d'. No need to
install anything. You could even use curl to automatically fetch
dependencies.
On 03/04/2012 03:35, Andrew Wiley wrote:
Unless you want someone else to build your software.
My biggest frustration with open source software and specifically with
meta build systems is that I don't want to learn a scripting language
So use D! I use D for my build script, works just fine.
htt
On 2012-04-03 17:20, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Jacob Carlborg, el 3 de abril a las 16:45 me escribiste:
On 2012-04-03 12:56, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
People that don't like Make is people don't understand Make :)
I do have some understanding of Make. BTW, Rake is basically a Make
implementati
My votes on waf. So I think I'll share my experiences with it.
Several years ago I wanted a cross platform solution to handling project
builds. I had been using eclipse/CodeBlocks which worked OK for simple
project but the lack of binary libraries for D and Windows combined made
me desire so
Jacob Carlborg, el 3 de abril a las 16:45 me escribiste:
> On 2012-04-03 12:56, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >People that don't like Make is people don't understand Make :)
>
> I do have some understanding of Make. BTW, Rake is basically a Make
> implementation that uses Ruby for the makefiles, it'
On 2012-04-03 12:56, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
People that don't like Make is people don't understand Make :)
I do have some understanding of Make. BTW, Rake is basically a Make
implementation that uses Ruby for the makefiles, it's _a lot_ better
than Make.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Jacob Carlborg, el 3 de abril a las 11:56 me escribiste:
> On 2012-04-03 11:06, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
> >Make is fairly simple. What makes it the complex beast it is - IMO -
> >when used in conjunction with autotools. :-)
>
> I would say that Make is the most horrible build system I've ever
Pe
On 03-04-2012 11:06, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 3 April 2012 09:23, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 03-04-2012 04:35, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
On 03-04-2012 01:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
On 03-04-2012 10:23, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 03-04-2012 04:35, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
On 03-04-2012 01:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 03/04/12 00:48, Alex Rønne Pete
On 2012-04-03 11:06, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Make is fairly simple. What makes it the complex beast it is - IMO -
when used in conjunction with autotools. :-)
I would say that Make is the most horrible build system I've ever used.
I guess I have most problem with the makefiles and their syntax.
On 3 April 2012 09:23, Andrew Wiley wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen
> wrote:
>> On 03-04-2012 04:35, Andrew Wiley wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen
>>> wrote:
On 03-04-2012 01:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>
>
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 03-04-2012 04:35, Andrew Wiley wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03-04-2012 01:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>>
On 03/04/12 00:48, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>
>
On 03-04-2012 04:35, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 03-04-2012 01:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 03/04/12 00:48, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
The Waf meta build system has good support for both GDC and LDC.
I'm reluctant to use Waf
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 03-04-2012 01:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>
>> On 03/04/12 00:48, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>>
>>> The Waf meta build system has good support for both GDC and LDC.
>>
>>
>> I'm reluctant to use Waf due to the issues describe
On 03-04-2012 01:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 03/04/12 00:48, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
The Waf meta build system has good support for both GDC and LDC.
I'm reluctant to use Waf due to the issues described here ... :-(
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/02/msg00714.html
Whi
On 03/04/12 00:48, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
The Waf meta build system has good support for both GDC and LDC.
I'm reluctant to use Waf due to the issues described here ... :-(
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/02/msg00714.html
On 02-04-2012 23:17, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 02/04/12 18:34, Iain Buclaw wrote:
This is equivalent to:
gdc -O3 -frelease -finline-functions
Ah; thanks! In fact -O2 -frelease suffices, it turns out.
Trass3r wrote:
Basically -frelease is missing.
Use -vdmd with gdmd to see the comma
On 02/04/12 18:34, Iain Buclaw wrote:
This is equivalent to:
gdc -O3 -frelease -finline-functions
Ah; thanks! In fact -O2 -frelease suffices, it turns out.
Trass3r wrote:
Basically -frelease is missing.
Use -vdmd with gdmd to see the command.
Thanks, I'd missed that option on the man page
On 2 April 2012 16:48, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> First, congratulations to the GDC team -- I'm playing with D for the first
> time in quite a while thanks to the up-to-date gdc 4.6 packages in the
> upcoming Ubuntu LTS release. It's great to see that D 2.0 now has this kind
gdmd -O -release -inline
produces a much faster executable (about twice as fast) as the typical
gcc-style options I would use,
gdc -O2 [or -O3]
Can anyone advise on appropriate gdc options to pick up the same speed
level?
Basically -frelease is missing.
Use -vdmd with gdmd to see t
49 matches
Mail list logo
