Judging by the amount of feedback I receive on rebuild, vs the amount of feedback I receive on DSSS, I'd say that 95% of rebuild users are not DSSS users. That is, there are more users who use rebuild alone than in tandem with DSSS. I could be wrong - maybe DSSS just has no bugs :).

Rebuild was designed primarily to complement DSSS, and DSSS was designed to be the ideal replacement for 'make' and pals for D, so I find it a bit disconcerting that a tool I designed primarily to be a background tool is being used as a primary development tool by so many.

So, the obvious question is: Why? Why use rebuild and not DSSS? I imagine there must be some misconceptions about DSSS, what it is, what it's for, et cetera.

I imagine some common misconceptions are:

 * DSSS is intended solely to be D's answer to CPAN - that is, a network installation tool. This just isn't true, the net portion is only a small chunk of what DSSS can do.

 * DSSS provides no advantages over using just a build tool. Also not true - even if DSSS provided /only/ a convenient build configuration file format (dsss.conf), that would be a sizable advantage of rebuild. DSSS provides much more, however, including easy generation of libraries with associated .di files, installation, documentation, etc, etc. If you really want your rebuild profile for an application or library be portable, you would need to either have several Makefiles or response files wrapped around rebuild (nasty), or use DSSS (nice).

 * DSSS is not portable to Windows. I think most people know that I'm not a Windows user, and Windows is mostly a foreign environment to me. However, this is not true. I've done my best, and am very responsive to bug reports, and DSSS does indeed work on Windows just as well as it does on Posix systems.

 * `dsss` is hard to type. Well, I've typed it more than a dozen times in this post, and my left ring finger is in no particular pain :)

If your concern or concept isn't noted here, please tell me / ask me! If DSSS /isn't/ everything you need it to be, help me /make/ it what you need it to be :).

 - Gregor Richards

Gregor Richards wrote:

> So, the obvious question is: Why? Why use rebuild and not DSSS? I
> imagine there must be some misconceptions about DSSS, what it is,
> what it's for, et cetera.

>  * DSSS provides no advantages over using just a build tool. Also not true - even if DSSS provided /only/ a convenient build configuration file format (dsss.conf), that would be a sizable advantage of rebuild. DSSS provides much more, however, including easy generation of libraries with associated .di files, installation, documentation, etc, etc. If you really want your rebuild profile for an application or library be portable, you would need to either have several Makefiles or response files wrapped around rebuild (nasty), or use DSSS (nice).

I'm using Rebuild as a Bud/Build alternative, mostly since it was
easier to compile but also since it seems to be a lot faster too.

Eventually I might look into trying to replace several Makefiles
with dsss.conf, but there is a slight learning threshold involved ?
So while I'm sure it's nice, I just haven't gotten around to it...
Thus the process still uses: gnumake --> rebuild --> gdmd --> gdc

Is there a problem if one finds rebuild useful without using DSSS ?
"Good ol' make. Nuthin' beats that!" - "Make!" - "DSSS!" - "D'oh!" :-)

--anders

PS. A migration guide might help ?

Gregor Richards wrote:

> If your concern or concept isn't noted here, please tell me / ask me! If DSSS /isn't/ everything you need it to be, help me /make/ it what you need it to be :).

I'm missing a --dry-run flag, that would print out everything it
would have done *if* you had executed it. Often used with install ?

And a man page, but I put one here: http://gdcgnu.sf.net/dsss.1

--anders

I use rebuild only through dsss, for what it is worth.  And I use dsss every day I do anything with D, more or less.

Howard

Gregor Richards Wrote:

> Judging by the amount of feedback I receive on rebuild, vs the amount of feedback I receive on DSSS, I'd say that 95% of rebuild users are not DSSS users. That is, there are more users who use rebuild alone than in tandem with DSSS. I could be wrong - maybe DSSS just has no bugs :).
> 
> Rebuild was designed primarily to complement DSSS, and DSSS was designed to be the ideal replacement for 'make' and pals for D, so I find it a bit disconcerting that a tool I designed primarily to be a background tool is being used as a primary development tool by so many.
> 
> So, the obvious question is: Why? Why use rebuild and not DSSS? I imagine there must be some misconceptions about DSSS, what it is, what it's for, et cetera.
> 
> I imagine some common misconceptions are:
> 
>   * DSSS is intended solely to be D's answer to CPAN - that is, a
> network installation tool. This just isn't true, the net portion is only
> a small chunk of what DSSS can do.
> 
>   * DSSS provides no advantages over using just a build tool. Also not
> true - even if DSSS provided /only/ a convenient build configuration
> file format (dsss.conf), that would be a sizable advantage of rebuild.
> DSSS provides much more, however, including easy generation of libraries
> with associated .di files, installation, documentation, etc, etc. If you
> really want your rebuild profile for an application or library be
> portable, you would need to either have several Makefiles or response
> files wrapped around rebuild (nasty), or use DSSS (nice).
> 
>   * DSSS is not portable to Windows. I think most people know that I'm
> not a Windows user, and Windows is mostly a foreign environment to me.
> However, this is not true. I've done my best, and am very responsive to
> bug reports, and DSSS does indeed work on Windows just as well as it
> does on Posix systems.
> 
>   * `dsss` is hard to type. Well, I've typed it more than a dozen times
> in this post, and my left ring finger is in no particular pain :)
> 
> If your concern or concept isn't noted here, please tell me / ask me! If DSSS /isn't/ everything you need it to be, help me /make/ it what you need it to be :).
> 
>   - Gregor Richards

Gregor Richards wrote:

> Judging by the amount of feedback I receive on rebuild, vs the amount of feedback I receive on DSSS, I'd say that 95% of rebuild users are not DSSS users. That is, there are more users who use rebuild alone than in tandem with DSSS. I could be wrong - maybe DSSS just has no bugs :).

I've found more bugs in Rebuild. For me that's to only reason. I use both of them.

I think being able to install Tango with DSSS would increase its popularity. I've probably set up my system wrong since 'dsss net install dmd' breaks my manually installed Tango.

> Rebuild was designed primarily to complement DSSS, and DSSS was designed to be the ideal replacement for 'make' and pals for D, so I find it a bit disconcerting that a tool I designed primarily to be a background tool is being used as a primary development tool by so many.
> 
> So, the obvious question is: Why? Why use rebuild and not DSSS? I imagine there must be some misconceptions about DSSS, what it is, what it's for, et cetera.
> 
> I imagine some common misconceptions are:
> 
>  * DSSS is intended solely to be D's answer to CPAN - that is, a network
> installation tool. This just isn't true, the net portion is only a small
> chunk of what DSSS can do.

Most probably this.

>  * DSSS provides no advantages over using just a build tool. Also not
> true - even if DSSS provided /only/ a convenient build configuration
> file format (dsss.conf), that would be a sizable advantage of rebuild.
> DSSS provides much more, however, including easy generation of libraries
> with associated .di files, installation, documentation, etc, etc. If you
> really want your rebuild profile for an application or library be
> portable, you would need to either have several Makefiles or response
> files wrapped around rebuild (nasty), or use DSSS (nice).

I think the misconception here is that people really don't know how to do all this. I hope you take this constructively: the documentation sucks. In fact, I haven't found one anywhere. :-P The 'dsss --help' does not count. I would like to see a real manual with some simple examples. 'dsss net install foobar' does not save any easily readable configuration files to any well documented location.

In fact, I was considering makefiles + rebuild for my next project since I don't know how to use DSSS. Maybe that will change now. ;)

>  * DSSS is not portable to Windows. I think most people know that I'm
> not a Windows user, and Windows is mostly a foreign environment to me.
> However, this is not true. I've done my best, and am very responsive to
> bug reports, and DSSS does indeed work on Windows just as well as it
> does on Posix systems.

No.

>  * `dsss` is hard to type. Well, I've typed it more than a dozen times
> in this post, and my left ring finger is in no particular pain :)

Certainly not. :)

Anders F Bj�klund Wrote:
> 
> I'm using Rebuild as a Bud/Build alternative, mostly since it was easier to compile but also since it seems to be a lot faster too.
> 
That's why I initially grabbed it and dsss too, but I haven't looked back since just using dsss for everything.

> Eventually I might look into trying to replace several Makefiles with dsss.conf, but there is a slight learning threshold involved ?

In my experience, very slight.  I found it pretty ridiculously easy to get started with.  Granted the largest thing I have built with it are some projects using derelict and others using gtkD; I haven't used it to replace makefiles in a large system yet.

Howard

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:51:24 -0700, Gregor Richards wrote:

> Why use rebuild and not DSSS?

Actually, there is (at least) one person that uses neither <G>

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
"Justice for David Hicks!"
skype: derek.j.parnell

Gregor Richards wrote:
...
>   - Gregor Richards

As others have said documentation is a bit lacking so I don't know what dsss
is capable of.
Secondly (maybe as a result of the previous) I don't know the advantages of
dsss over make, particularly I'm not sure how to know what dsss actually
does when building and how to run custom shell code. (If there is
documentation I have not found pleas give a link)

ps. if my above concerns can be addressed I think the net install feature can be a real boon in avoiding dependency hell. (ohh and does it suport amd64?)

Gregor Richards wrote:
> Judging by the amount of feedback I receive on rebuild, vs the amount of feedback I receive on DSSS, I'd say that 95% of rebuild users are not DSSS users. That is, there are more users who use rebuild alone than in tandem with DSSS. I could be wrong - maybe DSSS just has no bugs :).
> 
> Rebuild was designed primarily to complement DSSS, and DSSS was designed to be the ideal replacement for 'make' and pals for D, so I find it a bit disconcerting that a tool I designed primarily to be a background tool is being used as a primary development tool by so many.
> 
> So, the obvious question is: Why? Why use rebuild and not DSSS? I imagine there must be some misconceptions about DSSS, what it is, what it's for, et cetera.
> 
> I imagine some common misconceptions are:
> 
>  * DSSS is intended solely to be D's answer to CPAN - that is, a network
> installation tool. This just isn't true, the net portion is only a small
> chunk of what DSSS can do.
> 
>  * DSSS provides no advantages over using just a build tool. Also not
> true - even if DSSS provided /only/ a convenient build configuration
> file format (dsss.conf), that would be a sizable advantage of rebuild.
> DSSS provides much more, however, including easy generation of libraries
> with associated .di files, installation, documentation, etc, etc. If you
> really want your rebuild profile for an application or library be
> portable, you would need to either have several Makefiles or response
> files wrapped around rebuild (nasty), or use DSSS (nice).
> 
>  * DSSS is not portable to Windows. I think most people know that I'm
> not a Windows user, and Windows is mostly a foreign environment to me.
> However, this is not true. I've done my best, and am very responsive to
> bug reports, and DSSS does indeed work on Windows just as well as it
> does on Posix systems.
> 
>  * `dsss` is hard to type. Well, I've typed it more than a dozen times
> in this post, and my left ring finger is in no particular pain :)
> 
> If your concern or concept isn't noted here, please tell me / ask me! If DSSS /isn't/ everything you need it to be, help me /make/ it what you need it to be :).
> 
>  - Gregor Richards

I'll be honest. Your message suggested to me that I try dsss/rebuild again cause it's never worked for me. I have been using a very old version of build for a long time (like 6-9 months old). Today was the first day that dsss/rebuild actually compiled for me. So, really I couldn't try it. I will try it now though. If it can replace my seriously aging version of build, I'm probably converted :)

Kenny

Anders F Björklund escribió:
> Gregor Richards wrote:
> 
>> If your concern or concept isn't noted here, please tell me / ask me! If DSSS /isn't/ everything you need it to be, help me /make/ it what you need it to be :).
> 
> I'm missing a --dry-run flag, that would print out everything it
> would have done *if* you had executed it. Often used with install ?
> 
> And a man page, but I put one here: http://gdcgnu.sf.net/dsss.1
> 
> --anders

From the usage instructions:

-n             just list the commands to be run, don't run them

That?

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal