dub: should we make it the de jure package manager for D?

[Sönke Ludwig]

Am 11.09.2013 06:06, schrieb Jason den Dulk:
> On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 20:48:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> We're considering making dub the official package manager for D. What
>> do you all think?
>
> I think it is a good idea. Having a broad library available for
> developers to use is a big boost to productivity.
>
> However, I agree with luminousone that there need to be some rules about
> inclusion in the registry. Here are my ideas.
>
> 1) Must be legal.
> 2) Must be release usable.
> 3) Always has an active caretaker.
> 5) Have a clear & precise descrption of what it does.

I think most of this would best be handled by the community using some 
form of voting/commenting system (with the option for moderation in case 
of 1) or by automatically fading out packages that fail certain metrics 
over time (last update to long ago, to few recent downloads, too few 
other packages depending on it etc.).

> 4) Must compile and run with a "reasonably recent" version of the
> official compiler.

Having an integrated CI solution would not only solve 4, but would also 
allow things such as automatic online documentation for each package. 
But for so many packages this will of course be difficult in terms of 
available hardware power and security issues.

> 6) Have proper licensing.

This should be reasonably automated by enforcing that a proper license 
field is in place and enforcing proper license nesting for known license 
types (see [1] and [2]).

[1]: https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub-registry/issues/14
[2]: https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/dub/issues/117