On 06/04/2015 11:33 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 04.06.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
On 06/04/2015 04:39 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Of course you could make the system completely build
tool agnostic, but then you'd basically lose interoperability between
packages, as each package might choose its own build tool.
With this PR and the upcoming follow-up to add
--format=(list|some_compiler|whatever), there is NO issue with package
interoperability (as long as a package's "import-paths" is correct):
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dub/pull/572
Just to get this straight: Supporting external build tools like that and
by writing the proper generator has always been the goal of DUB (being
build tool agnostic). The built-in builder is basically mainly there for
convenience (although there is no reason not to improve it to the point
where it is a worthy competitor). But you still use DUB's build
description in that case.
What I really meant (and didn't really say) was if you completely remove
all build description related fields from dub.json - then you lose
interoperability.
Oh, right. I have no issue with dub *having* a built-in buildsystem.
(And it is fine and convenient for a lot of things, even if not
everything.) I've just hit roadblocks trying to use other buildsystems
instead and am only just now getting around to addressing those issues.
