On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 22:03:40 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-09-16 15:03, Dicebot wrote:
Simply having random folder added to PATH is exactly kind of unhygienic hack I don't like to see. I know that this approach is a usual way to do things on Mac but on my Linux machine I don't want a single binary out of build dir that is not known to core OS package manager ;) It does not matter if it is development tool.
What so bad about that?
It can't be used to satisfy dependencies for other packages. It is not possible to easily query all files belonging to it in a standard manner. It is not applicable for cross-language tools. It offers nothing over existing system built into my OS. It creates inconvenient fragmentation when multiple languages come into question.
I think dub approach with no actual installation but setting required environment instead is more hygienic (if I understand it right).
What do you mean with "setting required environment"?
Instead of installing libraries globally, simply provide required -I and -L switches to dmd upon build based on dependency list.
Also in my opinion simply cloning the repository is exactly what needs to be done in most cases. Language-specific package manager is just some syntax sugar on top which help to pull exactly the repository and tag you need.
I just don't agree with that. You also seem to keep forgetting that
there are platforms which don't have a package manager installed by default.
I remember it but it is not a D problem to solve. Or any other language. It is a common desire among the developers to consider their language a first class citizen and OS a second class one but in practice it is always other way around.
Actually, I have heard of quite mature generic package manager implementations for both Mac and Win, those just don't get any traction / recognition.