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

[Dicebot]

On Friday, 27 September 2013 at 06:49:39 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
> On 2013-09-26 13:39, Dicebot wrote:
>
>> No, you just let maintainers interested in target systems to 
>> take care
>> of it. And package for 2-3 you care about _personally_. It is 
>> an
>> obsolete idea that developer of a library/program should do any
>> packaging at all. If your program is any good, there will 
>> always be
>> volunteers to adapt it nicely for their beloved systems.
>
> How about doing a compromise. We add a new command to "dub" 
> which will execute an installed package. Something like this:
>
> $ dub install foo
> $ dub exec foo --help
>
> This will by default look in the package.json file, in the 
> current working directory, if it exists, for the correct 
> version of the package to run.

Ok, this is pretty hygienic (though as I have said it makes more 
sense to call it `dub cache` instead of `dub install`). Though 
what does it give you over just providing same environment via 
build dependencies? (I know, dub does not seem to build binaries 
from dependencies right now but I got an impression this is going 
to be fixed)