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

[Dicebot]

On Friday, 27 September 2013 at 07:32:12 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
> 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.

It won't install it out of clone dir either in that mode. Why 
would it? Building is enough.

>
>> Though what does it give you over just providing same 
>> environment via build dependencies?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.

Currently you can define dependencies in your package.json to 
other dub packages. Those will be in your -I flags when building. 
I expect this to be also extended to -L and PATH, so that you can 
call any binaries from dependency packages as if they were 
installed (during build/test of your package). For this to work 
no real installation is needed, just building packages straight 
in the clone dir and keeping it.