On 11/09/13 06:48, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> We've been experimenting with http://code.dlang.org for a while and
> things are going well. In particular Sönke has been very active about
> maintaining and improving it, which brings further confidence in the
> future of the project.
>
> We're considering making dub the official package manager for D. What do
> you all think?

Is there a 64 bit rpm for dub?

Peter

On 2013-09-10, 22:48, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> We've been experimenting with http://code.dlang.org for a while and things are going well. In particular Sönke has been very active about maintaining and improving it, which brings further confidence in the future of the project.
>
> We're considering making dub the official package manager for D. What do you all think?

I'm for. Glad to see this and VisualD getting more recognition.

-- 
  Simen

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:48:58 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> We've been experimenting with http://code.dlang.org for a while and things are going well. In particular Sönke has been very active about maintaining and improving it, which brings further confidence in the future of the project.
> 
> We're considering making dub the official package manager for D. What do you all think?
> 

Works for me!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAuPb16jRjY

On 09/10/2013 10:48 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> We've been experimenting with http://code.dlang.org for a while and
> things are going well. In particular Sönke has been very active about
> maintaining and improving it, which brings further confidence in the
> future of the project.
>
> We're considering making dub the official package manager for D. What do
> you all think?
>
>
> Andrei

I think the package format is really good.
The registry is essential but needs to support categories, searching and some sort of quality ranking (voting?) for future grow.
Dub itself works but is still somewhat raw.

So I am for making dub's package format and the registry the official place for packages and supporting dub as the primary package manager.

On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 00:18:27 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 10:48 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> We've been experimenting with http://code.dlang.org for a while and
>> things are going well. In particular Sönke has been very active about
>> maintaining and improving it, which brings further confidence in the
>> future of the project.
>>
>> We're considering making dub the official package manager for D. What do
>> you all think?
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I think the package format is really good.
> The registry is essential but needs to support categories, searching and some sort of quality ranking (voting?) for future grow.
> Dub itself works but is still somewhat raw.
>
> So I am for making dub's package format and the registry the official place for packages and supporting dub as the primary package manager.

Old, python proverb, I found 10 packages in the repo but all 11
of them are broken, or conflict with another package I am using!

On 9/11/2013 5:48 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> We've been experimenting with http://code.dlang.org for a while and
> things are going well. In particular Sönke has been very active about
> maintaining and improving it, which brings further confidence in the
> future of the project.
>
> We're considering making dub the official package manager for D. What do
> you all think?
>
>
> Andrei

+1

Since I started using it I've been evangelizing it quite zealously. I would love to see this.

On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 20:48:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> We've been experimenting with http://code.dlang.org for a while and things are going well. In particular Sönke has been very active about maintaining and improving it, which brings further confidence in the future of the project.
>
> We're considering making dub the official package manager for D. What do you all think?
>
>
> Andrei

I'm all in favor.

Careful about the dependencies though, particularly for dub-registry. It's dependent on userman and vibe-d, which is dependent on openssl, libevent, and libev (in Deimos).

NMS

On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 20:48:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> We're considering making dub the official package manager for D. What do you all think?

I think it is a good idea. Having a broad library available for developers to use is a big boost to productivity.

However, I agree with luminousone that there need to be some rules about inclusion in the registry. Here are my ideas.

1) Must be legal.
2) Must be release usable.
3) Always has an active caretaker.
4) Must compile and run with a "reasonably recent" version of the official compiler.
5) Have a clear & precise descrption of what it does.
6) Have proper licensing.

On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 04:06:18 UTC, Jason den Dulk wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 20:48:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> We're considering making dub the official package manager for D. What do you all think?
>
> I think it is a good idea. Having a broad library available for developers to use is a big boost to productivity.
>
> However, I agree with luminousone that there need to be some rules about inclusion in the registry. Here are my ideas.
>
> 1) Must be legal.
> 2) Must be release usable.
> 3) Always has an active caretaker.
> 4) Must compile and run with a "reasonably recent" version of the official compiler.
> 5) Have a clear & precise descrption of what it does.
> 6) Have proper licensing.

On number 4, I will point out that Derelicts opengl wrapper defines several win32 api structs and functions that are also in core.sys.windows.windows. Leaving me in the position of having to maintain a change set to the wrapper in order or use it.

Don't get me wrong I love derelict, Aldacron has done one hell of a job with it. And this complaint may have more todo with the somewhat ambiguous status that the windowsapi wrapper and core.sys.windows.windows and very simply what import has what function or struct declaration, and the conflicts arising from multiple definitions etc.

 And I get it that the wrapper is more designed to work with derelicts sdl or sfml wrappers, But this is a point that should be brought up, their does exist libraries that will break when used with the standard library.

I believe this would apply to point 2 and 4.

Maybe we need to define some package names that are reserved for particular purposes, such as std, or core, or etc/etc.c/ etc... Atleast within the context of the package manager so that multiple packages don't use the same module name(unless of course this is done intentionally for some useful purpose).

Am 10.09.2013 23:04, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:01:12 +0200
> "Brad Anderson" <eco@gnuk.net> wrote:
>>
>> I vote yes but only if Sönke feels it is ready. I suspect he has
>> a few things he'll probably want done before this happens (the
>> potential switch from JSON to SDL comes to mind).
>
> I assume that would be a backwards-compatible change. Make SDL the
> preferred, but keep JSON in service.
>

Exactly. Given enough interest, we could also make a more formal review process for a future SDL based format to ensure a maximum chance of a solid, forward compatible format.

Of my former list mentioned in the VisualD thread [1], only package signing is really still missing, but that's probably not mission critical for now. The command line build process also needs to be improved one way or another at some point (mostly caching pre-compiled dependencies), but that also isn't really a strong argument anymore.

All in all I'd say that the things that are in the package format [2] by now form a pretty solid basis to move forward without worrying too much about future breakage.

[1]: http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.vibed/post/79
[2]: http://code.dlang.org/package-format