How about this format? https://github.com/nin-jin/tree.d

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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).