On Monday, 12 August 2013 at 13:06:46 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
As long as packaging the various distros doesn't require any
constraints on how I manage my projects, then it doesn't matter
too much to me where or how people package it up. However, I do
see benefits to promoting dub as the means to build up the D
ecosystem. Then it's a central, goto location for D libraries
and everybody's on the same page. As long as dmd/gdc/ldc and
dub are available via the distro packages, that's all that
From the point of view of packager I'd say there are 2 key issues
1) Developers tend to forget that tools like `dub` are for taking
care of dependencies during development and end users won't have
`dub`. Even if it is a library, dynamic linking implies that it
will be pulled as a dependency not only by developers. That may
result in complications for integrating package into existing
package system. Sometimes.
2) `dub` is still quite immature when it comes to target path
configuration (unless I have missed some changes) - converting
its build output to FHS is not always convenient.
In my opinion, though, those are mostly quality of implementation
issues, nothing fundamental. Can't say how much troubles does
this really cause right now, have not tried to package anything
like Derelict yet.