Is run.d going to be expand for runtime and the phobos library?

[Bruce Carneal]

On Sunday, 14 June 2020 at 17:40:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 6/14/20 1:05 PM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>> On Sunday, 14 June 2020 at 16:07:16 UTC, Seb wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 18:56:55 UTC, Andrei
>>
>> [big snip of clarifying context and concise refutations of 
>> many earlier assertions]
>> 
>> Thanks Seb, for the context, the refutations, and for the 
>> references to alternative tools (rund, reggae).
>
> Most of said refutations are reducible to simple 
> misunderstandings. A few are due to my oversights. A few are 
> Seb's. My core point stays: build.d is not Good Work(tm), and 
> can't be talked into it. It must be worked into it.
>
> I don't want the makefiles back. I want Good Work, which 
> build.d has a good way to go toward. A good part of my critique 
> can be addressed by refactoring build.d in the ways I 
> suggested. Another part of the critique would be achieved by a 
> pass through its design, with an eye for making dependency 
> syntax tolerable.

I'm not a domain expert on this but from my earlier sight-reading 
of the code it sure looks like a rework/refactor/rewrite 
candidate to me as well.  More importantly Seb, a domain expert, 
appears to agree with you on this.

Such an agreement would make this a part of the well recognized 
bigger challenge: engaging qualified programmers from a 
mostly-volunteer pool to address known problems.