Which is why the argument of easier packaging because tool X is used by person Y advocating it, is meaningless from both a theoretical and practical point of view. In the end, it is just an application of graph theory, which is widely used in dependency resolution. Another option would be a sat solver producing the same result as for example is the case for libzypp in openSuSE.
Again, it is a matter of combining any of these solutions with a reliable and simple to understand format in order to produce a build system that is consistent first, fool - proof most of the time. Surely, doing this in Rust should be quite easily doable, given the fact that it is designed to be a systems language. Handling entire package life cycles would be a natural fit for a language with Rust's problem domain, even beyond the purposes of Rust itself. Think big, then bigger. G. On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:59 PM, james <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/01/2014 07:56, George Makrydakis wrote: > >> There is little reason to believe that having a build system in Rust >> would make It harder for people to package. >> > Surely you just need an alternate that is a script generated as a > from-clean dry run with -j1? It gives you the commands needed, in an order > that works. > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
