On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 12:36:14 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 07:35:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2015-02-02 06:57, ketmar wrote:
dub is good, but only in limited use cases. so it's almost no
sense in
using dub if some use cases are not suitable for it: it's way
better to
adapt build tool that one already using (or write his own)
instead of use
TWO build tools for different projects.
Dub should have been two tools, one for package management and
one for building.
Indeed. Most of the issues I hear about stem from it trying to
do both at the same time. It's a good package manager but
unfortunately a not so good build system. This makes me think,
once more, of writing a D build system that uses dub only for
package dependencies.
Atila
I agree that this is desired course of actions (I actually
sometimes use it this way, wrapping dub into makefiles :P) but
that can be a bit tricky when you think about different package
types - binaries, source libraries, shared libraries. The fact
that dub does both fetching and building ensures that all
dependencies are compiled in uniform compatible matter - any
decoupling proposal would need to ensure this stays.
