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

[Brad Anderson]

On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 06:12:41 UTC, Sönke Ludwig 
wrote:
> Am 10.09.2013 23:04, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:01:12 +0200
>> "Brad Anderson" <eco at gnuk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I vote yes but only if Sönke feels it is ready. I suspect he 
>>> has
>>> a few things he'll probably want done before this happens (the
>>> potential switch from JSON to SDL comes to mind).
>>
>> I assume that would be a backwards-compatible change. Make SDL 
>> the
>> preferred, but keep JSON in service.
>>
>
> Exactly. Given enough interest, we could also make a more 
> formal review process for a future SDL based format to ensure a 
> maximum chance of a solid, forward compatible format.
>
> Of my former list mentioned in the VisualD thread [1], only 
> package signing is really still missing, but that's probably 
> not mission critical for now. The command line build process 
> also needs to be improved one way or another at some point 
> (mostly caching pre-compiled dependencies), but that also isn't 
> really a strong argument anymore.
>
> All in all I'd say that the things that are in the package 
> format [2] by now form a pretty solid basis to move forward 
> without worrying too much about future breakage.
>
> [1]: 
> http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.vibed/post/79
> [2]: http://code.dlang.org/package-format

Perhaps there should be a version number in the package format so 
it can be changed when needed without a lot of headache and 
breakage.