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 really matters

From the point of view of packager I'd say there are 2 key issues here:

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.

Reply via email to