On 2013-02-16 20:37, H. S. Teoh wrote:
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.
The build system doesn't need to embedded in the package manager just to
have a standardize build system. See this:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/kfoei9$bmd$1...@digitalmars.com?page=4#post-kfqium:24unf:241:40digitalmars.com
--
/Jacob Carlborg
