On 2013-09-27 09:08, Dicebot wrote:
Ok, this is pretty hygienic (though as I have said it makes more sense to call it `dub cache` instead of `dub install`).
Currently "cache" is probably a better name. But if binaries are compiled I think "install" is an ok name. It just doesn't install it in the usual locations.
Though what does it give you over just providing same environment via build dependencies?
I'm not sure what you mean.
(I know, dub does not seem to build binaries from dependencies right now but I got an impression this is going to be fixed)
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "from dependencies". It doesn't build binaries at all.
Preferably I would like to be able to use "dub install/cache" and "dub exec" regardless if I have a project/package.json or not.
-- /Jacob Carlborg
