December 06, 2015 Re: I hate new DUB config format | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Suliman | How about this format? https://github.com/nin-jin/tree.d |
December 06, 2015 Re: I hate new DUB config format | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jin | Example: name =dedcpu author =Luis Panadero Guardeño author =Jin targetType =none license =BSD 3-clause description =DCPU-16 tools =and other staff subPackage name =lem1802 description =Visual LEM1802 font editor targetType =executable targetName =lem1802 excludedSourceFile =src/bconv.d excludedSourceFile =src/ddis.d lib name =gtkd platform =windows config name =nogtk platform =windows config name =gtk platform =posix dependency name =gtk-d:gtkd version ~> 3.2.0 |
December 07, 2015 Re: I hate new DUB config format | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Sönke Ludwig | On 27/11/2015 12:33, Sönke Ludwig wrote: >> * dub describe does not provide information for all build >> configurations, only the default one. As such the IDE has to parse the >> json to find out all available configurations itself. (This is used in >> the DDT IDE to show a list of "Build Targets" in the UI) > > You can do "dub --print-builds --print-configs --annotate" > > But it's currently uselessly bound to the build/run commands. Should > definitely be part of "dub describe"'s output. Thanks, this seems like it should be useful. -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros |
September 14, 2016 Re: I hate new DUB config format | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Bruno Medeiros | Sönke Ludwig, really sorry. It's look my big mistake. I looked at SDL more detail, and this format is much better than JSON. I hope a lot of people is changed their position too. |
September 16, 2016 Re: I hate new DUB config format | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Suliman | On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 11:54:56 UTC, Suliman wrote:
> Sönke Ludwig, really sorry. It's look my big mistake. I looked at SDL more detail, and this format is much better than JSON.
>
> I hope a lot of people is changed their position too.
The main diff I see is that in JSON you can have arbitrary property names
e.g: dflags-windows-x86
while in SDL the arch and system parts are defined as attribute. This is clearly cleaner and it probably prevents a lot of lookup...but
I still prefer JSON because of CE even if SDL is supported now in Coedit upstream.
|
September 16, 2016 Re: I hate new DUB config format | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Suliman | On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 10:17:02 UTC, Suliman wrote:
> I think that using SDL format was big mistake. Not only I do not want to spend time in learning yet another dead config format that now use only one project -- DUB. In time when DUB used json it was not perfect, but at last it was standard and everybody can read it.
>
> Now when I come to code.dlang.org I can't simply do copy-past of dependence. I need go to docs page, and read how to include it.
This is exactly why I (and many others) spoke up against it and why Andrei said had he of known sooner, he would have stopped it! It is a terrible decision especially as SDL is so obscure.
|
September 16, 2016 Re: I hate new DUB config format | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Suliman | On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 11:54:56 UTC, Suliman wrote:
> Sönke Ludwig, really sorry. It's look my big mistake. I looked at SDL more detail, and this format is much better than JSON.
>
> I hope a lot of people is changed their position too.
There is a superset of Json that could of been used instead.
|
September 16, 2016 Re: I hate new DUB config format | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gary Willoughby | On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 14:44:18 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 11:54:56 UTC, Suliman wrote:
>> Sönke Ludwig, really sorry. It's look my big mistake. I looked at SDL more detail, and this format is much better than JSON.
>>
>> I hope a lot of people is changed their position too.
>
> There is a superset of Json that could of been used instead.
When starting a project with `dub` you are given the choice between SDL and JSON. No need to worry:
$ dub init sample
Package recipe format (sdl/json) [json]:
Do we have a converter tool by now?
|
September 17, 2016 Re: I hate new DUB config format | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Chris | On 17/09/2016 2:48 AM, Chris wrote:
> On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 14:44:18 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 at 11:54:56 UTC, Suliman wrote:
>>> Sönke Ludwig, really sorry. It's look my big mistake. I looked at SDL
>>> more detail, and this format is much better than JSON.
>>>
>>> I hope a lot of people is changed their position too.
>>
>> There is a superset of Json that could of been used instead.
>
> When starting a project with `dub` you are given the choice between SDL
> and JSON. No need to worry:
>
> $ dub init sample
> Package recipe format (sdl/json) [json]:
>
> Do we have a converter tool by now?
$ dub convert
|
September 16, 2016 Re: I hate new DUB config format | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Chris | On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 14:48:30 UTC, Chris wrote:
> Do we have a converter tool by now?
SDL to JSON is available in the results of `dub describe` (in the "packages" array, usually the first item is the JSON for the SDL you describe).
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation