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

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-09-11 18:11, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

> It will only look at version tags of the form vA.B.C(postfix) any reason
> to hide one of those? It could be added as a feature to the registry,
> but is there a compelling use case to warrant the costs?

No, that should be ok.


> "or", you can choose which using "dub --config=library" or "dub
> --config=application" (the default).

Ok, I see. I got confused by the documentation:

"Automatically detects the target type. This is the default global value 
and causes dub to try and generate "application" and "library" 
configurations"

It says '"application" and "library"'. I think you should update to say 
"or" to avoid this confusion.

> Works for me, but master was broken for some hours. Maybe you caught a
> bad version?

No, I don't think so, I was using 0.9.17. What's the expected 
output/file(s)?

> I just don't know if that can be generalized to everyone or at least the
> majority of users. Maybe this is a good topic for starting a wider
> discussion/poll.

When you start using enough packages it will cause problems.


> If used correctly, by definition, it _does_ help. Reality, especially in
> the fast moving D environment, may be different, though. However it
> seems to work quite well in the C world.

It helps, but it won't fix or make the problem go away.


> By upgrading and getting updates of indirect dependencies, even if the
> main package wasn't updated.

Then you get specify that instead in the dependency list. Most often I 
don't care about indirect dependencies, as long as everything works. If 
I get a new version of an indirect dependency it would be, most likely, 
through a direct dependency.

> Note that I definitely don't oppose to the idea of integrating such a
> mechanism -- I do see the value. The question is if it should be the
> default or not (Bundler is opt-in after all), taking into account for
> example how well it interacts with branches and different use cases. I'm
> quite open there, but I first have to play that through with all of my
> stuff before I can voice an opinion.

Bundler is required when using Ruby on Rails. I just don't want 
everything to break at random just because it's a month later a new 
version of a package is released.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg