[scrollaway]

It's a "bigger problem". New languages bring new build systems and there really isn't much you can do about that.

However, what could be standardized is package distribution. I shouldn't have to have 10 different package managers for 10 different languages, each of them with different ways of expressing essentially the same metadata, etc.

As a language developer, I shouldn't be expected to create my own version of a package manager, with download, local / remote search, versioning, vcs support, upgrades, hooks, and a million other things. Package managers are complex beasts.

It's a bit like if every javascript project was expected to create its own http server. Except it's not http, it's a weird custom protocol they invented just for the sake of it. Naaaaasty.

[striking]

Arch Linux's "pacman" is exactly what you're looking for in those regards (to some degree). The only problem is that using pacman repositories instead of the language builtin ones means you're going to have issues with global installation and so on and so forth.

But you raise some really good points. I have to ponder this further.

[scrollaway]

Of course! pacman is one of the best package managers out there (and the best I've personally used). But its developers sadly don't share in the vision of using pacman outside Arch Linux. It's a wonder it works on msys2.

It's a point I tried to raise in the past but without much success. If you want to start a project to fix this, email me (especially if it's centered around pacman - I'm an arch TU).