On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 08:15:13PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2013-02-16 19:39, Sönke Ludwig wrote: > > >Not at all, the idea is to have a number of "build script" generators > >so everyone can choose whatever fits best, otherwise a generic > >rdmd/dmd based build works out of the box with no need to install an > >additional tool. Invoking a generic external tool is easy enough to > >add and already planned, so this should not be a limiting factor in > >any way. > > Ok, I see. But it feels wrong to me that it should generate a build > script. I think the package should already contain a build script. [...]
I think Sönke's idea is actually very good. I know we all have our own preferences for build systems (I know I do -- for example, I abhor anything to do with makefiles), but having a standardized way to specify a build has many advantages. Imagine the user-unfriendliness of downloading a bunch of packages from the D package manager, only to discover that one requires make, another requires cmake, another requires SCons, another requires Ant, pretty soon, what should be just a simple automatic download turns into a nightmare of installing 20 different build systems just so you can use a bunch of packages from the standard D package manager. Having a standardized way of generating build scripts is good, because then the D package manager can target the *end user*'s preferred build system, rather than whatever build system the package writers chose. The package writers can just specify how to build the stuff, then let the D packager generate makefiles for one user, Ant files for another user, etc.. This makes it much more friendly to use, and therefore, more likely people will actually use it. T -- Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.
