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

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-09-27 09:08, Dicebot wrote:

> Ok, this is pretty hygienic (though as I have said it makes more sense
> to call it `dub cache` instead of `dub install`).

Currently "cache" is probably a better name. But if binaries are 
compiled I think "install" is an ok name. It just doesn't install it in 
the usual locations.

> Though what does it give you over just providing same environment via build dependencies?

I'm not sure what you mean.

> (I know, dub does not seem to build binaries from dependencies right now
> but I got an impression this is going to be fixed)

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "from dependencies". It doesn't 
build binaries at all.

Preferably I would like to be able to use "dub install/cache" and "dub 
exec" regardless if I have a project/package.json or not.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg