Vladimir Panteleev wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:36:43 +0200, Lutger Blijdestijn > <lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Vladimir Panteleev wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:35:34 +0200, Lutger Blijdestijn >>> <lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm pretty happy that my Fedora repositories are just a handful, most >>>> of >>>> which are setup out of the box. It's a big time saver, one of it's best >>>> features. I would use / evaluate much less software if I had to read >>>> instructions and download each package manually. >>> >>> I don't see how this relates to code libraries. Distribution >>> repositories >>> simply repackage and distribute software others have written. Having >>> something like that for D is unrealistic. >> >> Why? It works quite well for Ruby as well as other languages. > > Um? Maybe I don't know enough about RubyGems (I don't use Ruby but used it > once or twice for a Ruby app) but AFAIK it isn't maintained by a group of > people who select and package libraries from authors' web pages, but it is > the authors who publish their libraries directly on RubyGems. >
Aha, I've been misunderstanding you all this time, thinking you were arguing against the very idea of standard repository and package *format*. Then I agree, I also prefer something more decentralized.