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

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-09-26 15:53, Bruno Medeiros wrote:

> You have to install the yourself, yes. Not compile it. Dub should take
> care of the compiling aspect.

Have you tried it? It does _not_ compile a package when running "dub 
install".

> If you just want to use the tool executable artifact, dub is likely not
> right for you.

That might be the case. I'm just seeing this as a great opportunity to 
use libraries and tools for development.

> If the tool requires more complex installation, the tool
> developers should provide their own installer or OS distribution package.


> A build tool should not download anything? That is antiquated C/C++/make
> way of thinking. Popular build tools for modern languages all do
> downloading, for example Apache Maven (for Java), Gradle (for lots of
> different languages), and even RubyGems.

I just think that should be a separate tool.

> You might say RubyGems is a package manager, and not a build tool. But
> in practice it is both actually, even if it is not called a build tool:
> It fullfills the the equivalent goal as structured build tools like
> Maven or Graddle do for other language, the distinction is only less
> clear becase Ruby as a language can be easily interpreted and does
> require an overt "compilation/build" phase to generate an executable.
>


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg