Make dub part of the standard dmd distribution

[Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d]

Am 01.06.2015 um 09:19 schrieb Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d:
>
> On 1 Jun 2015 09:09, "Manu via Digitalmars-d"
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  > On 1 June 2015 at 16:54, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d
>  > <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > On 1 Jun 2015 08:45, "Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d"
>  > > <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>>
> wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >> On 06/01/2015 01:57 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>  > >>>
>  > >>> On 1 June 2015 at 15:05, Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d
>  > >>>>
>  > >>>> That's not really how you use dub though. dub simply isn't a
> good fit
>  > >>>> for
>  > >>>>
>  > >>>> people who want it to be a system package manager. Its goals are
>  > >>>> different.
>  > >>>> If people want that they should work on getting libraries added
> to their
>  > >>>> preferred system's package registries.
>  > >>>
>  > >>>
>  > >>> Right, so, someone decide a path, we'll write it on dlang.org
> <http://dlang.org>, and
>  > >>> then everyone will agree and fall in line :)
>  > >>>
>  > >>
>  > >> Not sure how serious/joking you are about that, but when has
> declaring a
>  > >> standard whatever like that ever worked for anything ever? ;)
> Linux can't
>  > >> even agree with Linux on where things should go, apparently that's
> why C on
>  > >> linux has pkg-config.
>  > >>
>  > >
>  > > Leave it to the distribution is the safe option in my experience.
> To have
>  > > something along the lines of what Manu wants, I guess we need
> something like
>  > > virtualenv to allow building in a clean/standard environment.
>  >
>  > Yeah, I think I can see 2 parallel problems here.
>  > 1. There is a lib installed from a -dev package managed by the
>  > distribution... I just want the complementary .d files. (this is what
>  > I actually care about)
>  > 2. There is some open-source D code which isn't distributed as a
>  > binary, it's just a git repo and you fetch it and build it locally. (I
>  > find that I rarely need this, so I don't have much opinion on this
>  > case)
>  >
>  > For case 1, my preference would be a distro managed package alongside
>  > the lib itself, and installed into a standard location. If dub could
>  > pull the bindings I want and put them in some common location, fine.
>  > For case 2... I dunno. What if you offer a lib that falls into case 2;
>  > source is available, user can fetch and build against it locally, but
>  > it contains C code too? dub isn't exactly a build system which can
>  > express a complex build environment.
>  > I can't create a dub package for my engine, which might be of interest
>  > to D gamedevs.
>
> In one sense this can be solved at the distribution level.  If dub was
> provided through your package manager, the package maintainers can
> ensure that dub was configured to understand where all system sources
> are located (or will be located).
>
> Can all of dubs default settings be dumped to json and be overriden?
>

It would be possible to put a ".dub/settings.json" with custom settings 
into the distribution package (hmm, /etc/dub/settings.json or similar 
should probably supported in addition to that...).